That doesn't make sense.
> Want more oil from Nigeria? Offer them more money than the other buyers.
How about I offer them some lead to sweeten the deal? As in, take my lower offer or else?
> Want to fish the waters around Tuvalu? Radio them and offer more money.
Or I'll just go fishing because what ever Tuvalu can do to me?
> Want Congolese cobalt? Same idea.
The idea works when the players have no better choice than to play by the market rules, win or lose. At small scale, most people figure it's better to lose the deal than be thrown into jail for being extra convincing - but this is only possible because of a legal and enforcement system that's stronger than any individual or group. At larger, international scale, nukes provide a backstop that keeps everyone in check, by keeping total war absurdly expensive for everyone.
> It was based on the sensible idea that the market place is a better way to settle these things than the battlefield, something even a Marxist should be willing to admit.
The market will tell you that peaceful solution is only better if the war is really expensive. Large power imbalance can easily make war the cheaper option.
In general, any solution that requires people to just go along with it is doomed to failure - someone eventually will figure it's in their benefit to defect. Stable solutions are ones that, by design, align with default human behavior. Like MAD.
Worth also mentioning that there isn't just "war" and "peace", except in international laws. Soldiers on the ground are just the realization of threats of use of force, which themselves are a last-ditch diplomatic technique. There are other such techniques - sanctions, for example, are just as brutal as war. All that is implied in international negotiations, not invoked explicitly unless parties can't reach a reasonable agreement without threats of violence.