power, in so far as the laws reflect the will of individuals, the form of the State will be the one based on the principle of right. In Kant’s republican political structure, individuals, in their capacity as citizens, enjoy their freedom from the perils of an unjust war by remaining the lawmaker themselves: “For a citizen must always be regarded as a co-legislative member of the state (i.e. not just as means, but also as an end in itself), and he must therefore give his free consent through his representatives […]. Only under this limiting condition may the state put him to service in dangerous enterprises.”2 At the same time, given that law is the reflection of the will of the individuals, Kant’s conclusion follows that laws cannot be unjust.3 Fernando Teson claims that by ‘republican’, Kant means “what we would call today a liberal democracy, a form of political organisation that provides full respect for human rights”.4 The Kantian vision of global peace, which linked the idea of democracy and individual human rights to peace,5 has been extremely popular among liberal international lawyers, 2 3 4 5 18 Ibid, 166–167. See also, Kant, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795),” in Kant: Political Writings, 99–102. Kant, “The Metaphysics of Morals,” 139. F Teson, “The Kantian Theory of International Law,” Columbia Law Review 92 (1992): 61. See, Teson, “Kantian Theory of International Law.” See also, Thomas Franck, “The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance,” American Journal of International Law 86 (1992): 88.