War is the contiuation of politics by other means. - Carl von Clausewitz
For the purpose of this question, a conflict will be defined as a disagreement between two or more parties.
It must not be possible for the humans to view violence as a superior solution to the provided solution, for whatever reason. - You
This creates an obvious issue as solving conflicts is the foundation of politics, thus violence and war are a
Humans have always sought to avoid war because killing someone, at least someone in your closest social circle i.e. tribe is a very poor economic decision. Usually this has been done by monopolising the use of violence so that only a few people could initiate violence in order to solve a conflict. In the earliest societies this could have been a wise person, the chief, a council of elders, an elected leader or an absolute ruler. Yet this can go terribly wrong if the leader dicides to abuse his power, thus his right to use violence. Adolf Hitler for example was a democratically elected leader whose exploits based on his utilisation of his leaders roles right to initiate violence went horribly wrong.
Another solution is having a code of law or a constitution. This has been used as an addion to the monopolisation of violence as this collection of rules keeps the leader in check and limits his power. In addition having an indipendent, strong judicial system creates even more efficient ways to solve conflicts without violence. Yet even having all of those things did not stop the USA from declaring war after war in the middle east in order to solve its problems down there.
Since any species that creates a civilisation must be extremely well versed at solving problems and conflict they will be extremely well versed in the use of violence. After all even children are educated at proper behavior by adults using "do this or else" strategies. Violence does not only mean great battles but the threat of even minor forms of it keeps our society going. "Do your shi**y work properly or I will fire you and you will live in poverty" is the base of any kind of employment.
So is there a way of having a society where violence is not used by the government or individuals? No, but there might be in the future.
The kind of society I'm talking about is a post-discontent civilisation, the darker cousin of the post-scarcity civilisation. While a post-scarcity civilisation attempts to satisfy all the needs of its members a post-discontent civilisation attempts to make everyone think their needs have been satisfied. By its very nature it needs to be an extremely totalitarian surveillance state with the ability to watch every citizen all the time and to drug and brainwash them. Personal AI assistants watch over ones shoulders every secound, manipulating peoples actions is order to avoid violence and dissent. Everyone who developes desires which would need to be satisfied with resources beyond the ones needed for basic survival gets drugged and brainwashed. One might say that this constitutes the use of violence but proper education will ensure that noone will see it that way. If a man falls in love with a women for example and the chance of a successful relationship is calculated to be low by the AI's or setting it up would cost a lot of resources he simply takes anti-loveperin as he as been told by the AI. For him it is like using a plaster on a scratch as he's been taking medicine in order to no longer want things he can't have since kindergarden.
This solves all conflict by eliminating it, thus eliminating the need for politics, thus preventing politics form escalating into violence.