1284 LEGAL UPDATE SPECIALIST www.newlawjournal.co.uk | 12 October 2012 | New Law Journal

Public Hero worship? Does the new Avengers fi lm highlight a command structure, which operates shift in American perceptions of the UN globally (the  lm, for example, takes place on three di‰ erent continents). & its ability to maintain global peace? Indeed, the events of Marvel’s Avengers Assemble not only potentially trigger Dr James A Green investigates international law; they are also a product of it.  e Avengers, it turns out, IN BRIEF are part of the United Nations. In the comics, the Avengers—or,  The UN has never had its own military force, despite a dormant provision in Art more accurately, S.H.I.E.L.D—is 43 of the UN Charter concerning the possibility of a “UN army”. inconsistently depicted as being either a  The establishment of new UN military sub-organs is possible under international covert limb of the American government law, so long as they are properly mandated by the Security Council. or a sub-organ of the UN: in some stories  The UN Security Council can authorise otherwise unlawful UN intervention S.H.I.E.L.D seems to have American under Arts 40-42 of the Charter, if there exists a “threat to the peace, breach of oversight, while in others it is presented the peace or act of aggression” (as per Art 39). as being a cooperative international body. In Joss Whedon’s new  lm, the decision was clearly taken to go with he recent  lm adaptation of in violation of a legal prohibition the latter representation. S.H.I.E.L.D is Marvel comics’ superhero on all superhero activity and the shown as a UN sub-organ, rather than Tsmorgasbord— e Avengers—has main character of V for Vendetta is a as a purely American domestic one.  is broken numerous box o ce records terrorist (albeit one  ghting against a is never made entirely explicit, but is and is now the third highest grossing fascist state).  e X-Men is exclusively evident throughout the  lm (take, for movie of all time. It was also fairly comprised of mutants, meaning that example, the multinational composition well received critically. All of which Professor X is in violation of a number of S.H.I.E.L.D’s shadowy “council” is impressive, given the number of big of provisions of anti-discrimination in a number of scenes).  erefore, the name characters (not to mention big law. Even your friendly neighbourhood S.H.I.E.L.D presented in the movie name actors) vying for screen time in a Spiderman is at it: a fraudulent seller of (including its Avengers taskforce) single  lm. staged photographs. is a creation of international law, in For me, as an international law In most cases, though, these characters possession of its own international legal academic, Marvel’s Avengers Assemble perform their legally questionable acts of personality. We are no longer talking (as it was irritatingly monikered in heroism in a domestic setting, potentially about an unstable individual in a cape the UK thanks to Steed and Peel), in violation of domestic (let’s face it, and costume, but an intergovernmental was of particular interest from a legal almost exclusively American) law. On body with its own international legal perspective.  e Avengers, and especially the rare occasions when a superhero rights and duties. their relationship with S.H.I.E.L.D— does stray beyond the land of the free  e establishment of new UN sub- the organisation that “assembles” and (see, for example, Batman’s brief trip to organs is, in itself, not all that contentious directs them— have always set my Hong Kong in Christopher Nolan’s e under international law, with well- international law spidey senses a’tingling, Dark Knight), they tend to essentially known examples being the international and their recent big screen incarnation is act on their own behalf.  us, their criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and no di‰ erent. actions would, almost always, trigger the Rwanda, which were both created in domestic law of the territory in which the 1990s by the UN Security Council. Superheroes & the law they have decided to operate. Superheroes  e creation of S.H.I.E.L.D would, In general terms, the relationship just don’t breach international law. theoretically at least, be entirely possible between comic book heroes and “the under international law, so long as this law” is an uneasy one. Batman is the The Avengers as a UN sub-organ was properly mandated by the Security best known of a plethora of vigilantes;  e actions of the Avengers, however, Council. Having said this, the UN Superman is an illegal immigrant living would seem to give rise to international has never actually had its own military in America under an assumed name. legal responsibility.  e group is force, despite a dormant provision in  e Watchmen unrepentantly operate organised through an institutional Art 43 of the UN Charter concerning New Law Journal | 12 October 2012 | www.newlawjournal.co.uk SPECIALIST LEGAL UPDATE 1285 the possibility of a “UN army”.  e (including the less than subtle Captain Cultural attitudes to the UN member states of the UN have always America), they are actually something of Of course, there is a signi cant amount been extremely uncomfortable with the a coalition of the willing; featuring, as of inanity in applying real-world legal idea of the organisation possessing any they do, a Russian and faux Norse deity. restrictions to a fantasy  lm which has kind of independent force.  erefore, the no apparent agenda other than to act as UN has had to rely on its members to act Did the Avengers assemble in escapist entertainment. Indeed, while militarily on its behalf when necessary. breach of international law? a number of the Avengers’ actions were Creation by the Security Council of a Despite S.H.I.E.L.D being a UN probably in contravention of international covert militarised sub-organ such as organ there are a number of prima law, they did—after all—save the world. S.H.I.E.L.D would be, quite simply, a facie breaches of international law So perhaps we can forgive them. political impossibility. in the  lm (and not just by the  ere is a serious cultural point “So what?” you might think. Unlikely evil Loki).  e Avengers’ regular underpinning all this, though: the as the creation of a UN military sub- transborder uses of military force, the  lmmakers clearly made a choice to organ may be, it is presumably still channelling of mobile phone signals represent S.H.I.E.L.D as a UN body, more likely than a man who turns into a worldwide to attempt to locate the rather than a US one.  e latter option monstrous green giant when annoyed, or missing “Tesseract” plot MacGu n, would presumably have been an easier a billionaire who has designed his own S.H.I.E.L.D’s plans to create a WMD course (given the objections of the US suit of £ ying armour. Given we are in deterrent against alien invasion and— DOD), would not have impacted on the the world of Marvel superheroe—and most notably—the attempted use of actual content of the  lm, and could thus are already engaged in a signi cant a nuclear weapon in New York by the have been justi ed to superfans because suspension of disbelief—one may argue S.H.I.E.L.D Council at the end of the of the contradictory representations we should just let slide the political  lm, would all seemingly constitute of S.H.I.E.L.D in the comics.  e improbability of S.H.I.E.L.D’s existence. breaches of Art 2(7) of the UN Charter multinational option was, however, Yet while pinpointing the exact (as well as of various other provisions of preferred. For all its international legal legal status of S.H.I.E.L.D in the  lm treaty law and customary international failings, Marvel’s Avengers Assemble may seem a trivial exercise, the US law). Article 2(7) prohibits the UN ultimately presents the UN as saving the government has taken it rather seriously. organisation from intervening “in day (even if it never explicitly says so). It was revealed in May that during the matters which are essentially within In contrast, during the era of the Bush  lming of Marvel’s Avengers Assemble, the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. administration in the US, superhero the US Department of Defence (DOD) Military deployment, unilateral global comics and  lms were keen to deride the decided to withdraw from its consultative surveillance and the launching of UN as an ine‰ ectual “paper tiger” or role on the movie.  e DOD was nuclear weapons would, it is safe to say, as an overly paternal irritant. Take, for uncomfortable with the comparative all qualify as “intervention”. example, the depiction of the organisation lack of control that the US was depicted Admittedly, the UN Security Council as merely being the weak representative of as having in the ( ctional, remember) can authorise otherwise unlawful UN “the rest of the world” in Bryan Singer’s S.H.I.E.L.D organisation.  e Defence intervention under Arts 40-42 of the 2000  lm X-Men (a movie discussed in Department’s “Hollywood liaison” (a Charter, though it can only do so where Anthony Chase’s article charting the job that is not  ctional, despite sounding there exists a “threat to the peace, breach representation of international law in like it is) expressed concern publicly of the peace or act of aggression” (as per cinema). Such cultural critique is indicative as to the representation in the  lm of Art 39).  e attack on Earth by Loki of American attitudes towards the UN at the US as a subordinate member of a and his Chitauri minions in the  lm the time—attitudes that only became more wider multinational military force.  e would probably constitute all three of entrenched post 9/11. DOD decided it wanted nothing more these things, and thus would allow for Perhaps the new Avengers  lm to do with the Avengers or their movie. the Security Council to lawfully pass highlights a shift in pervading American Eagle-eyed  lmgoers may still spot some an authorising resolution. However, any cultural perceptions of the UN and its American military hardware on the deck such resolution could be vetoed by one potential as a means of maintaining global of the S.H.I.E.L.D “helicarrier” in the of the  ve permanent members of the peace. A positive thought; though the  nished  lm, but for the most part the UN Security Council, which include the reaction of the US DOD equally shows Avengers were assembled without the US. It seems unlikely that the Americans that scepticism of a multilateral approach US military as a reference point (unlike, would fail to veto a resolution that to international relations is still alive and say, the  rst Iron Man  lm, which was allowed for a UN organ to detonate well in Obama’s America, even when it full of recognisably American hardware a nuclear bomb on Manhattan (or comes to the world of superhero movies. and procedure). even a resolution that devolved on the Overall, though, Marvel’s Avengers S.H.I.E.L.D and the Avengers S.H.I.E.L.D Council the power to take Assemble seems to take the encouraging are both entirely intergovernmental such a strategic decision itself). view that nations, like superheroes, work enterprises. S.H.I.E.L.D is a UN Given this, it is ultimately pretty clear best as a team. NLJ organisation and the Avengers operate that S.H.I.E.L.D’s actions cannot have under S.H.I.E.L.D’s direction. It is worth been authorised by the UN Security Dr James A Green, reader in public remembering that while the Avengers Council and, therefore, that the Avengers international law, University of Reading themselves are, unsurprisingly, comprised were operating in breach of international E-mail: [email protected] of a predominance of American members law at various points in the  lm. Website: www.reading.ac.uk/law