Ius gentium or ius cosmopoliticum, what is the future global law like?

When writing about international law, Kant uses two terms: ius gentium and ius cosmopoliticum. On the one hand, Kant seems to think that these terms mean the same. On the other hand, if one looks closely at them, especially in the context of Kant's specific understanding of the term cosmopolitanism, their equivalence does not seem obvious at all. A closer analysis of this issue leads to very interesting conclusions about Kant's perception of the entire international sphere. Two views are possible here, from the perspective of the state, or from the perspective of a citizen of the world, a representative of the human species. This raises the question of which of these two solutions has better prospects as future international law and which should be the overriding principle of relations at the global level?