At the start of the 21st century the Kantian peace has acquired a substantial amount of rhetorical capital. This paradigm in the study of international relations has three leading perspectives. From the perspective of political science analytic description of a progressive development of peaceful relations between (two) democratic states is at the centre. A second approach engages from the perspective of liberal international law. A third normative take, sees the crux of the Kantian peace as securing the freedom from oppression throughout the world by multiplying powers of enforcement in order to guarantee the rights of the global citizen. These appropriations of the essay invite a universalist furtherance, that leaves little room for particular allegiances. I argue that the original Kantian piece has indeed a global remit, but that this implies the recognition of the significance of particular societies. A Kantian “peace through rightful relations” scheme needs to be put to practice in different societies that have their own roots. This means that Kant’s cosmopolitan perspective - based on the notion of human life on a shared globe - entails that powers of enforcement should be limited instead of multiplied.
