Abstract
Firstly, after replying to the Hart’s question “Is International Law really law?”, we determine if it can be binding upon sovereign states, and how it is (or not!) able to face out the new challenges listed below. Arguing that the inevitable and predictable harm inflicted on losers constitutes a pro tanto reason not to distribute goods competitively, we will focus on Hussain’s insights about what competition is and why it is morally problematic. Consequently, as clear definition of conflict – and wrong terrorism – seem to be lacking, we will suggest an alternative solution that approaches the wronging of terrorism from the spectacles of the theory of recognition. The fourth point outlines the imminence of environmental harms as equating to actual harms, and as being parallel to gross harms, humanitarian disasters and crimes against humanity. An argument for pre-emptively treating actors as liable and responsible for harmful-conduct will be also presented. Lastly, in the pandemic setting of environmental terrorism, we will propose a new approach and method of lawmaking under a broad term of “cosmolegal”, that challenges distinctions between scientific and social laws.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
