>these mercenaries (who have enough power to take out a settelment) could also be used for immoral jobs, or to seize power in the country
I have the same concerns about government. At least I know that mercenaries wouldn't have "legitimacy" to step over other people's freedom.
Plenty of immorality from governments to talk about.
>Ok, but i'm pretty sure your system will offer even less satisfactory conflic resolution, since it relies on private mercenaries for example.
What is the difference between a mercenary and a policeman then? What makes police inherently good? You're just arguing from a status quo perspective. Easy to claim everything would be a disaster but you need to provide good arguments as to why, based on human incentives and compare those incentives to the current ones.
>Well, international law isn't very effective is it?
Depends the amount of interaction between countries. If there are two communities that want to have very close relationships, free movement, etc, it is expected that they will have ways to solve conflicts for these interactions.
The easiest way is to subject yourself to third party arbitration, choosing someone fair and making sure the decision is binding. Refusal to solve conflicts is a declaration of war.
>what you described is really not an army. unless you the landlord offers armored divisions and an airforce
You don't need an airforce to defend your territory, you need it to invade others. I don't want to pay for anyone to invade others, doesn't mean I don't want to pay for me to be able to live without being scared for my life.
>Unless some of those comunities have different moral systems (like say muslims or jews who will cover for their own)
A decision that will lead to prosperous communities banning muslims or jews from entering their property. If some people are untouchable, they can't be interacted with.