Conflicts at the systemic and state levels arise due to a complex interplay of structural, political, economic, and social factors. At the systemic level, conflicts are often driven by the anarchic nature of the international system, where no overarching authority exists to enforce rules or mediate disputes. States operate in a self-help environment, prioritizing their survival, security, and national interests. Competition for power, resources, and influence often escalates into conflicts, as states perceive threats from one another and act to maintain or enhance their relative position. Systemic conflicts can manifest in arms races, territorial disputes, and proxy wars, reflecting the inherent tension of a world without a central governing authority. At the state level, internal conflicts occur due to political, economic, social, or cultural factors. Domestic power struggles, unequal distribution of resources, governance failures, ethnic or religious tensions, and ideological differences can all contribute to internal unrest that may spill over into regional or international tensions. Conflicts at both levels are interconnected, as domestic instability can invite external intervention, while systemic rivalries can exacerbate internal divisions. From a realist perspective, conflicts are inevitable due to the anarchic nature of the international system. Realists argue that states are rational actors whose primary concern is survival. In an environment where no higher authority guarantees security, states must rely on self-help strategies, including military buildup, alliances, and balancing behavior. Power asymmetries among states generate fear, mistrust, and competition, which often lead to systemic conflicts. Realists emphasize the role of relative gains; states are less concerned with cooperative benefits than with maintaining or increasing their power relative to potential adversaries. This perspective explains both systemic conflicts, such as great power rivalries, and state-level conflicts, where weaker states may resort to aggressive strategies or internal suppression to secure their sovereignty and stability. Realists also stress that systemic change, such as shifts in the balance of power, can trigger conflicts as states adjust to new hierarchies. Liberal perspectives offer a different explanation, focusing on the potential for cooperation and institutional mechanisms to mitigate conflicts. Liberals argue that conflicts arise not merely from structural pressures but also from the absence of effective communication, norms, and institutions that promote cooperation. At the systemic level, liberal theory emphasizes that states with shared democratic values, economic interdependence, and participation in international organizations are less likely to engage in war. Conflicts occur when states are disconnected from these cooperative networks, misunderstand each other’s intentions, or fail to uphold international norms. At the state level, liberal perspectives highlight internal factors