Chapter 6 discusses the origin and protracted development of capitalism in Turkey in the post-World War II period. I show how capitalist social relations began to penetrate the social fabric, and how the initial Kemalist project has been reinvented by different actors to contest and produce capitalism. In addition, the period after the 1950s witnessed the rise of a new capitalist class in provincial Anatolian towns. Pace the conventional interpretation, commercial groups of Anatolian towns organized in and through the Islamic National View Movement (NVM), neither supported an "artisan" or "statist" capitalism, nor was it simply an Islamic critique of the developing market society. Instead, the movement envisioned a novel political space as the foundation of a new capitalist industrialization strategy unencumbered by the spirit of earlier Republican policies. Although the NVM was unable to take control of the state from the 1970s to the 1990s, its conservative capitalist heritage was appropriated by the Justice and Development Party, which has led to an unprecedented consolidation and deepening of capitalist social relations in Turkey since the beginning of the new millennium.

Taking such a stance inevitably shifts the analysis towards production or some soteriological notion of knowledge. Instead, I point to the relevant issues of practical choices: situations (which are not just exhausted by known distributions or unreflected habits or routines but which require constant attention to surprises) to the temporality of choice in which present, past, and future interact that explode the intentional paradigm of action) and the issues of judgement (Kant’s Urteilskraft), which is a critical ability but does not coincide with algorithms or of testing theoretical propositions but which can be acquired only by acting within the social world, or as Hume had it is acquired by ‘commerce and conversation’ rather than by observation from an ideal standpoint.

This chapter explores how the concept of visibility is politically crucial to practice theorizing within IR. It does so by drawing on recent work in social theory to demonstrate how practices of making certain persons, objects, or phenomena seen or unseen work to establish socio-political hierarchies. Specifically, we show how regimes of visibility endow actants with greater or lesser (in-)visibility ‘capital’ that structures what can be seen, heard, and felt about the world. We empirically explore the effects of regimes of visibility through the case of extraordinary rendition (and torture) in the United States and the Syrian Arab Republic, and the affective, political, and social effects of regimes of visibility in this case. Drawing on that discussion, we conclude that practices of making seen or unseen are regimes that predefine the focal point of any (scientific or not) mode of observation or analysis. As a result, the study of any other set of practices are filtered through regimes of visibility and – hence – practices of visibility fashion the way we see all practices. We argue that this central role of regimes of visibility makes their consideration within international practice theory crucial for its research programme.

This chapter is devoted to some of the philosophical issues that arise in the context of action, taking issue with the thesis that the turn to practices will lead to a better ‘theory’ of international relations or of social action. I first examine different choice-approaches and show why they are false friends; that is, they rely on misleading analogies. Here rational choice (goal means rationality), technique (techne), or the production of an object, systems (whole/ part distinctions), and teleologies or ideal theories concerned with the clarification of normative principles are found wanting. Common to all these different approaches is the notion that action can be subjected to a theoretical gaze, be it the view from nowhere or of being able to determine where we are from the point of the ‘end of history’. After some preliminary criticism I show 12 important differences that characterize action and that are overlooked when we think that such views are helpful for understanding praxis.

The final chapter summarizes the argument of the book and considers its implications for International Relations and historical sociology.

The jus temporis that is argued for in this chapter aims to explicate the value of human time that is to be found in the finite, irreversible, and unstoppable character of human time. To make the value of human time explicit, "rootedness" and "integration" are conceptually distinguished. The latter signifying qualified time, the former mere lapse of human time. Rootedness simply signifies the entanglement of presence on a territory with the lapse of finite and irreversible human time. This conception of rootedness is at the heart of jus temporis and its implications are not limited to questions of citizenship acquisition. It is argued that the value of rootedness equally applies to waiting time in procedures, endless forms of temporariness, and unlawful residence. Concretely, it is argued that this jus temporis implies two elements. The first is a certain openness to the future, the possibility that a certain situation will not last forever. The second element is that there should be end-terms at work in law: procedures may not last forever, temporariness may not continue eternally, and there should be a moment when long-term unlawful residences can become lawful.

With the rise of global governance, the concept of authority has become central to capture the power of non-state actors to shape the everyday making of world politics. Such power draws on intersubjective schemes that make non-state actors be perceived as being in authority or an authority. The chapter argues that the association of practice and authority moves the boundaries of the field. Unlike the Weberian conception of authority that pre-defines various sources from which actors can draw, scholars working from a practice perspective have tackled the process of authority. They thus have substituted a substantialist ontology with a relational one. The chapter details three main contributions of this scholarship. First, scholars working from a Bourdieusian perspective have investigated the claims to authority, which sheds light on the social struggles underpinning the construction of hierarchy in international relations. Drawing on the sociology of knowledge, a second trend of scholars has looked at the construction of the object of authority, which allows to understand the historical construction of expertise. Finally, a third trend of research, inspired by governmentalities studies, has opened up the new empirical field of authoritative practices, which changed the analytical focus from institutions to the making of governance.

Justice and equity are fundamental to the complex choices that societies need to make to achieve transformative change (Bennett et al., 2019; IPBES, 2019; Leach et al., 2018; Martin, 2017). Evidence that more socioeconomically unequal societies tend to experience higher rates of biodiversity loss (Holland et al., 2009; IPBES, 2019) suggests that injustice and threats to biodiversity are closely intertwined. Injustice can function as an underlying cause of biodiversity loss, such as where colonial expropriation of Indigenous peoples’ land paves the way for its exploitation (Martinez-Alier, 2002).

This chapter analyzes the potential for transformative change for biodiversity conservation in the governance of protected areas and other conserved areas (which incorporates other effective area-based conservation measures or OECMs). This is achieved by analyzing efforts to achieve Aichi Target 11 under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) strategic plan to 2020, and discussing the need for a new outcome-based approach under the CBD’s Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which is under discussion at the time of writing but expected to be adopted during 2022.