No, I don't think there is. In a serious dispute between founders, for the company to survive, there must be some mechanism to conclusively resolve the controversy. A blood pact not to remove cofounders disrupts those mechanisms.

One way or another, a grave and unresolvable dispute between founders will leave you with some performing partners and some nonperforming partners. It's hard to imagine operating a company with a nonperforming partner on the books; not only do they have dramatically less of a stake in the company than everyone else, but they also have a gun to the heads of the rest of the company.

It's worth adding that wanting to be on the books as a full partner/director/founder of a company that wants you ousted is, for a cofounder operating in good faith, irrational.

When you start a company with other people, you have to decide first whether you're starting a company or a club. A club can disintegrate as a result of conflict and that's not a big deal. But if you're building a company, then the welfare of the company needs to be among the most important factors in resolving disputes.