When law lives in memory, not code, it becomes a site of contestation rather than compliance. This commentary explores what modern protocols could learn from restitutional jurisprudence and the Brethna tradition.
Restitution Before Enforcement
Early Irish law prioritized balance over punishment. Brethna frameworks focused on *restitution*, not retribution. They didn’t ask “who broke the rule?” They asked, “how can right relation be restored?”
Legal standing was not enforced from above, but maintained through honour-price and social repair. This was law as lived protocol.
When Interoperability Overwrites Context
Most modern schemas mimic the aesthetics of law—terms, definitions, inheritance structures—without carrying its obligations.
Machine-readable standards erase authorship. API contracts collapse restitution into automation. But authority without context is enforcement without justice.
Why Glossaries Must Hold Conflict
Modern legal glossaries aim to clarify. Brethna glossaries aimed to **surface contradiction**. Semantic friction was not a flaw—it was proof of context, memory, and competing sovereigns.
A glossary that doesn’t allow for disagreement is not a legal instrument. It is a tool of extraction.
When Definition Costs the Definer
To define from lived experience is to risk being reformatted. Many trauma-informed terms are captured by institutions and weaponised for compliance. Brethna authorship reminds us: a term must carry its author’s sovereignty—or it is stolen law.
Bleeding glossaries are not broken. They are *alive*. They are under threat *because* they retain their source.
Legal Commentary Without Citation
Protocol authorship today often mimics legal form but lacks legal force. The Brethna remind us: what grants standing is not publication, but memory + obligation.
This commentary is not peer-reviewed. It is context-anchored. It cannot be enforced. But it can be remembered. That is law enough for a protocol layer.