Anonymous question

Everything is simple with civil courts: commercial arbitration already looks the way civil courts should look under libertarianism. The parties agree on whom to invite to adjudicate, that person adjudicates, and then the parties execute the decision. Whoever refuses bears reputational costs, and in a minarchist state, it wouldn’t end there; the state would send bailiffs to enforce the arbitration decision.

With criminal law, it is slightly more complicated.

When the person who used violence does not hide, the task is reduced to the previous one: they and the representatives of the victimized party agree on who will judge, then the court’s decision is executed—voluntarily or forcibly.
If the person who used violence is unknown, first the party interested in the investigation either investigates the matter independently or hires detectives, and only after the NAP violator is found, there may follow either a trial or retribution.

A court cannot be imposed on anyone, because a court decision whose jurisdiction is not recognized by all litigating parties is legally null and void. But if instead of a court, retribution simply took place, then the party that carried out the retribution will now have to prove itself that this was not a violation of the NAP. They will litigate with those who are ready to condemn them for the retribution, present the collected evidence of the NAP violation by the victim of the retribution in court, and will be acquitted. Or not, if the evidence proved insufficient.

Thus, if a criminal hiding from justice realizes that they are already breathing down their neck, they are extremely interested in reaching the nearest prison in time and buying refuge from retribution there while negotiations regarding a trial are underway.