Coordinate inter-house relationships: Difference between revisions

From We Are Ts'msyen
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Amusterer (talk | contribs)
initiation arm
 
Amusterer (talk | contribs)
 
Line 78: Line 78:
== Cross-References ==
== Cross-References ==
* [[Wilp and Waap Governance]]
* [[Wilp and Waap Governance]]
* [[Inter-House and Inter-Tribal Dispute Law]()]()*
* [[Inter-House and Inter-Tribal Dispute Law]]*

Latest revision as of 17:47, 15 January 2026

Coordinate Inter-House Relationships

Coordination of inter-house relationships is a lawful function that preserves balance between Wilp (Waap).

No house governs another. Houses relate through law, protocol, and mutual recognition.

Principle

Inter-house coordination exists to:

  • Prevent conflict
  • Resolve overlapping responsibilities
  • Maintain balance across territories
  • Ensure Ayaawk is upheld collectively

Coordination does not replace house authority.

Basis of Coordination

Inter-house relationships are coordinated through:

  • Witnessed protocol
  • Adaawk and shared history
  • Lawful agreement and consent
  • Recognition of territorial boundaries and duties

Authority flows from houses, not over them.

Forms of Coordination

Coordination may include:

  • Shared stewardship of lands or waters
  • Trade and access agreements
  • Dispute resolution processes
  • Collective responses to harm or external pressure

Each house remains responsible within its own domain.

Limits

Inter-house coordination must not:

  • Override a house’s Ayaawk
  • Transfer authority without proper process
  • Centralize power at the expense of houses
  • Silence dissent or lawful objection

Coordination that becomes control is unlawful.

Role of Witnesses

Witnesses ensure that:

  • Agreements are remembered
  • Obligations are honored
  • Boundaries are respected
  • Violations are recognized

Without witnesses, coordination lacks legitimacy.

Modern Context

In modern settings, coordination includes:

  • Councils and assemblies formed by houses
  • Collective decision-making on shared impacts
  • Unified responses to governments or corporations
  • Refusal of imposed structures that bypass house consent

Modern coordination must remain answerable to house law.

Consequences of Breakdown

When inter-house coordination fails:

  • Disputes may arise
  • Responsibilities may be clarified or reassigned
  • Lawful intervention may be required
  • Restoration of balance becomes necessary

Law exists to restore relationship, not impose hierarchy.

Cross-References