Advertisement

Human Security—A View Through the Lens of Complexity

  • Anthony J. MasysEmail author
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

Figures compiled by the Department for International Development (DfID) suggest that between 50000 and 100000 people, more than half of them children under five, died in the 2011 Horn of Africa crisis that affected Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. The US government estimates separately that more than 29000 children under five died in the space of 90 days from May to July last year. The accompanying destruction of livelihoods, livestock and local market systems affected 13 million people overall. Hundreds of thousands remain at continuing risk of malnutrition (http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-dangerous-delay-horn-africa-drought-180112-en.pdf, 2012). The threats to human security are multiple, complex and interrelated and often mutually reinforcing. The complexity view of the human security domain facilitated by Actor Network Theory (ANT) is supported by methods of network analysis and computational simulation that highlight how dynamic networked strategies associated with human security require a continuing process of inquiry, adaptation and learning. Through this analysis emerge critical insights regarding human security policy and the shaping of interventions.

Keywords

Human security Complexity Actor network theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Grateful acknowledgement is given to Dan Braha, Hiroki Sayama and Yaneer Bar-Yam for their fruitful insights and instruction during the 2011 Winter School on Complex Systems- New England Complex Systems Institute.

References

  1. 1.
    Save the Children (2012) A dangerous delay: the cost of late response to early warnings in the 2011 drought in the Horn of Africa. Joint Agency briefing paper. Available at http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-dangerous-delay-horn-africa-drought-180112-en.pdf
  2. 2.
    Sommaruga C (2004) The global challenge of human security. Foresight 6(4):208–211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security (2009) Human security in theory and practice: applications of the human security concept and the United Nations trust fund for human security, pp 1–79. United Nations, New York Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Masys AJ (2010) Fratricide in air operations: opening the black box- revealing the social. PhD dissertation, University of Leicester, UK Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Masys AJ (2012) Black swans to grey swans—revealing the uncertainty. Disaster Prev Manag 21(3):320–335 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilkinson A, Eidinow E (2008) Evolving practices in environmental scenarios: a new scenario typology. Environ Res Lett 3:1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dooley KJ, Corman SR, McPhee RD, Kuhn T (2003) Modeling high-resolution broadbrand discourse in complex adaptive systems. Nonlinear Dyn Psychol Life Sci 7(1):61–85. 2003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walby S (2003) Complexity theory, globalisation and diversity. Presented to the conference of the British Sociological Association, University of York Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitleton-Kelly E (2004) Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: the application of complexity theory to organisations Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yeung HWC (2003) Towards a relational economic geography: old wine in new bottles? Paper presented at the 98th annual meeting of the association of American geographers, Los Angeles, CA, March 19–23, 2003. Available at http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/geoywc/publication/Yeung_AAG.pdf
  11. 11.
    Latour B (1996) On actor-network theory. A few clarifications. Soz Welt 47:369–381 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor network theory. Oxford University Press, London Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Powell JL, Owen T (2011) Actor network theory and social science: possibilities and implications. J Public Adm Gov 1(2):140–157. www.macrothink.org/jpag Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Urry J (2005) The complexities of the global. Theory Cult Soc 22(5):235–254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Callon M (1999) Actor-network theory: the market test. In: Law J, Hassard J (eds) Actor network and after. Blackwell Sci./The Sociological Review, Oxford/Keele, pp 181–195 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Monteiro E (2000) Actor network theory and information infrastructure. In: Ciborra C (ed) From control to drift. The dynamics of corporate information infrastructures. Oxford University Press, London, pp 71–83. www.idi.ntnu.no/~ericm/ant.FINAL.htm Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Open University Press, Milton Keynes Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wickramasinghe N, Tumu S, Bali RK, Tatnall A (2007) Using actor network theory (ANT) as an analytic tool in order to effect superior PACS implementation. Int J Netw Virtual Organ 4(3):257–279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Somerville I (1997) Actor network theory: a useful paradigm for the analysis of the UK cable/online socio-technical ensemble? Available at http://hsb/baylor.edu/eamsower/ais.ac.97/papers/somervil.html
  20. 20.
    Viseu AAB (2005) Augmented bodies: the visions and realities of wearable computers. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Comfort LK (2005) Risk, security and disaster management. Annu Rev Pol Sci 8:335–356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Styhre A (2002) Non-linear change in organizations: organization change management informed by complexity theory. Leadersh Organ Dev J 23(6):343–351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dennis K (2007) Time in the age of complexity. Time Soc 16:139–155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barnes M, Matka E, Sullivan H (2003) Evidence, understanding and complexity: evaluation in non-linear systems. Evaluation 9(3):265–284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anderson R, Crabtree B, Steele D, McDaniel R (2005) Case study research: the view from complexity science. Qual Health Res 15(5):669–685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mitleton-Kelly E, Papaefthimiou MC (2000) Co-evolution of diverse elements interacting within a social ecosystem. In: Proceedings of feast 2000 international workshop on feedback and evolution in software and business processes, Imperial College, London, pp 10–12 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strogatz SH (2001) Exploring complex networks. Nature 410:268–276 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levine S, Crosskey A, Abdinoor M (2011) System failure? Revisiting the problems of timely response to crises in the Horn of Africa. Network paper number 71. Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (2006) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (2006) From centrality to temporary fame: dynamic centrality in complex networks. Complexity 12(2):59–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Security ScienceDefence R&D CanadaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations