While Marvel growing the cojones to explore more consequential themes is a welcome addition to ex-popcorn flicks, criticism or at least discussion was inevitable. Plot holes or intentionally placed seeds to set up further story; there's still much to speculate about the film that strayed focus from it's argument halfway into itself. Here's giving Marvel's attention to detail the benefit of the doubt. Spoiler Alert.
1. The Sokovia Accords Are Hypocritical
Why would a society that knows of aliens existence want to limit their defense? Why would Tony Stark agree? How much authority did SHIELD have?
In CA: TWS, SHIELD was shown to comprise council members of various ethnicities (which couldn't have been an unintentional addition) so it's safe to assume that their jurisdiction was of little limit and that technically, they were the world police force; the highest authority in the world. So when in Avengers (2012), the council decided that an alien invasion was best dealt with by nuking Midtown Manhattan, the 'disregard' for collateral damage can be understood as a measure of necessity. Yet, The Avengers (the only defense from such threats) are criticised for the very issue as if they've direct responsibility. The invasion occurred solely because SHIELD possessed the Tesseract.
By extension, the measures SHIELD assumed were necessary to defend the world from alien threats are what invited it, making them responsible. Yet, the entire issue is never mentioned in its entirety which seems short sighted and hypocritical, but is there a plot to this?
2. SHIELD's Council Members, Mustache Face Ross, Bruce Banner, And Tony Stark Should All Be Jailed
A society with the burden of knowledge will do everything to ensure safety.
The entire argument to the film has its holes. All of these men have taken measures to enforce safety that resulted in an unintended death count. Ultron, Hulk, Abomination, possession of the Tessaract and almost nuking Midtown Manhattan.
A recurring theme in these films is how power backfires and although in every instance there is direct responsibility involved, the film doesn't act so. The film presents its logic in a very diplomatic and emotional, almost manipulative light.
3. The Line Between SHIELD and HYDRA is Blurred
Thanks to the 21st Century.
SHIELD and HYDRA can be seen as either side to the same coin, and if SHIELD's disassemblement doesn't mean men like Nick Fury give up their agendas, the same logic can be applied to HYDRA and so it can be assumed that HYDRA is still alive. The clever bit about these Captain America films is how non-binary it can be to distinguish between the two (for an agent of security), however batsh*t insane their methods are, HYDRA could rationalise its actions by withdrawing information for example: how Thunderbolt Ross convinces the Avengers of oversight. Which the myriad hypocrisies and exemptions to justice imply. Also, Captain America: TWS confirmed that HYDRA's grasp wasn't solely focused on SHIELD using this guy:
and clever enough, the same authority figure Stark Stark rejected in Iron Man 2. The exact logic is repeated, the only difference being Stark's deteriorating mental health clouds his judgement or all his visions and PTSD convince him of HYDRA's necessity but that's a bit much. So, former.
4. The United Nations Consists of HYDRA
That felt stupid to type. Thanks, fiction.
It seems as though the UN is introduced to replace SHIELD/HYDRA and especially because the line between the two is so thin.
Their motto being "if a head is cut off, two more will take its place". The more you think of the argument presented by Civil War, the more it seems poorly thought out for all it's exceptions, OR it's Marvel being really clever. The latter, clearly. Perhaps this is what inevitably unites Black Panther, Captain America, and the Avengers; the knowledge that authority figures are full of sh*t, basically.