You must choose one of the two options specified in the question. The question assumes that ‘all socially recognized agents’ may include non-humans. More controversially, the question also assumes that some humans may not be ‘socially 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.
Given the word limit (2500 words), 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 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.