Liberals have long disagreed about the nature and purposes of international
reform. This article juxtaposes two recent research programmes that are pr
emised on typically liberal assumptions and goals - democratic peace theory
and the cosmopolitan democracy model. Two central claims are advanced. Fir
st, both of these liberal approaches are premised upon radically different
depictions of Immanuel Kant's legacy - or at least what his legacy ought to
mean to us today. These different conceptions of Kant's relevance suggest
that his ambiguous status as a so-called 'liberal' supports remarkably diff
erent forms of this ideology. Thus, Kant's legacy is not a neutral ground,
but is rather a way in which older conflicts within liberalism are becoming
reproduced in the post-Cold War era. The second argument is that the cosmo
politan democracy model is a superior vision of international reform becaus
e it transcends an anachronistic conception of 'popular sovereignty' as the
sole liberal means through which to produce freedom and peace.