That's a long way to stretch an analogy to make a political point. Were there armies? Soldiers equipped to kill?
Or was this a legal dispute of the sort that companies have been engaging in since the invention of companies, and individuals have been engaging in since the invention of the court?
I mean you are right that in absence of a judicial system and the monopoly on violence exercised by nation states and supranational treaties, a conflict such as this could have been violent.
Or was this a legal dispute of the sort that companies have been engaging in since the invention of companies, and individuals have been engaging in since the invention of the court?