Academic Publications
Gause, L., Abrajano, M., Boehmer, A., Do, N. D., Freeman, B., & Uribe, L. (2024). “Using civically engaged research to understand the strategic dynamics of social media outreach.” Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1-22.
Freeman, B. (2024). “The Positivist Turn of Race in IR.” Presidential Special Issue. International Studies Review, Volume 26, Issue 3.
Freeman, B. (2024). “Race in IR: toward empirical study.” International Politics, 61(2), 443-450.
Freeman, B. (2023). “Racial Hierarchy and Jurisdiction in US Status of Forces Agreements.” Race and Security Special Issue. Security Studies, 32(4-5), 748-774.
Freeman, B., Kim, D. G., & Lake, D. A. (2022). “Race in International Relations: Beyond the ‘Norm Against Noticing.’” Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 175-196.
Works in progress
Race and the Global Legal Order. (Book Project).
“Race and Responsibility in International Intervention.”
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has been invoked in over one hundred resolutions since its formal endorsement by the UN General Assembly in 2005. Although R2P was designed to protect populations around the world from mass atrocity, the doctrine is selectively cited over countries in Africa. Why are most failures to protect attributed by the international community to African states? I argue that R2P betrays a racialized bias whereby the legal principle of sovereignty is transformed into a conditional privilege withheld from most African countries all else equal. Racism codifies Black people—and by extension, Black countries—as not only deficient and lacking capacity, but also more violent and prone to non-institutionalized political behavior. Both racialized dynamics then render majority Black countries irresponsible and in need of corrective, collective action by other (White) countries. Using data on R2P invocations and mass atrocity events from 2006-2024, I measure the relationship between a country’s racial majority and the decision to intervene. The results suggest R2P is disproportionately invoked over African societies, controlling for dimensions of state capacity, organized violence, and other explanations for R2P. Above capacity and violence in Africa, its racialization still matters for international intervention.
“Blue Line, Blue Helmet: Race and the Limits of Representation in Peacekeeping.” (with William Nomikos).
The vast majority of international interventions are conducted by Global North countries in the Global South. Despite this pattern, we know remarkably little about how race shapes the outcomes of those interventions. Recent work suggesting that local perceptions are central to the legitimacy and efficacy of intervention makes this omission particularly problematic. We fill this gap by proposing racial bias as a distinct explanation for peacekeeping (PKO) efficacy. To test our argument, we examine the case of UN peacekeeping in sub-Saharan Africa. We merge existing geo-referenced, cross-national data on local populations and the deployment patterns of PKOs in order to measure a relationship between the likely perceived race of each peacekeeper and local violence reduction. We find that majority-Black communities are more likely to experience a reduction in violence when the peacekeeping unit is non-White compared to those perceived as White. Our study suggests that race can help explain the conditions under which peacekeepers reduce violence.
“Race and Host State Public Opinion on the US Military Presence.” (with Carla Martinez Machain).
“Race and Foreign Policy.” (with Naima Green-Riley).
“Race and Jurisdiction Waivers in U.S. Status of Forces Agreements.”
Beyond the Wire: US Military Deployments and Host Country Public Opinion, by Allen, M., Flynn, M., Martinez, C., Stravers, A. Book Review. International Studies Review. Revise and Resubmit.