The way I see it... the Sokovia Accords only prevents the Avengers from taking action without the UN's permission, if said action is occurring outside of the US. Indeed their actions in Washington, D.C. and New York were part of the blame the Avengers had to carry to eventually decide to follow the Accords, but I believe there would be less stress between Iron Man having to stop an alien invasion in New York, so he would likely be forgiven in that case.

Forgiven for breaking the law is the point though. He shouldn't have to be forgiven, since these instances require immediate action. If the Avengers had waited for Ultron to destroy Sokovia, there'd be no more humanity.

I love all you guys’s points on this post. Thank you fr for being so insightful

@Brett3801 Exactly... I suppose Iron Man would be called to intervene in the New York invasion of the Black Order anyway, Iron Man just anticipated any permission he would have required, so I assume he would be ok with it.

Which is exactly why the Accords are pointless. If Tony and Peter are allowed to just do that anyway, what's the point of them?

For safety of logic

But it's illogical. Tony had to break the law in order to save the day, so why have the law there? It's just a hindrance.

Laws are meant to be broken anyway

I mean, they're not. Laws are designed to be followed, that's why we have them.

But they wouldn't make them if nobody broke rules