Guidance on interpreting the topic:
• Given the word limit, you will not be able to discuss every issue that is relevant to defining ‘the
scope of the law’. So, you should feel free to focus on particular features of the law –including
legislation, adjudication, administration, rights, crimes, contracts, torts, etc. – to make your case
as clearly as possible.
• You must choose one of the two options specified in the question. The question assumes that ‘all
socially recognized agents’ may include nonhumans. • More controversially, the question also
assumes that some humans may not be ‘social [recognized” (in a sense to be specified by you).
• If you argue that all but only humans are covered by the law, then you also need to say
something – not extensive – about the implications this has for non-humans under the law.
• If you argue that all socially recognized agents are covered by the law, then you also need to
discuss – not extensively – the implications this has for the standing of humans under the law.
• You can deploy any of the legal-theoretic perspectives discussed across both terms of the
module. You can bring in additional perspectives, where appropriate, as well. However, the essay
is not primarily about discussing those perspectives in laborious detail. It’s about demonstrating
their relevance to the case you wish to make. The essay should mainly be about how humans,
animals and/or machines would be treated in the legal regime you propose.