Na temelju Rezolucije Vijeća sigurnosti broj 779 (1992) UNPROFOR je bio ovlašten Ťpreuzeti odgovornost za motrenje sporazuma dogovorenih za potpuno povlačenje Jugoslavenske armije iz Hrvatske, razvojačenje poluotoka Prevlaka i uklanjanje teškog oružja iz susjednih područja Hrvatske i Crne Gore...Ť. Nakon isteka mandata UNCRO-a, Rezolucijom broj 1038 (1996.) određen je nastavak Ťmonitoringa demilitarizacije poluotoka Prevlake u skladu s rezolucijom Vijeća sigurnosti broj 779 (1992.)Ť, pa je uspostavljena Misija vojnih promatrača UN-a na Prevlaci (UNMOP). Polazeći od činjenice da je sporazum o povlačenju JNA bio Ťutemeljen na konceptu uspostave demilitarizirane zone s obje strane hrvatsko-crnogorske granice (plava zona) i područja bez teškog naoružanja i fortifikacija (žuta zona), sadržaj zadaća vojnih promatrača na rtu Oštra (Prevlaka) vezan je uz promatranje demilitarizacije žute i plave zone kao područja njihove odgovornosti. Polazeći od navedenih osnova i komparativno promatrajući iskustvo provedbe pojedinih mirovnih operacija Ujedinjenih naroda (UN), koje pokazuje kako vojni promatrači redovito imaju četiri primarne zadaće - promatranje, potvrđivanje, izvješćivanje i pregovaranje - analiziramo provedbu mandata vojnih promatrača UN-a na rtu Oštra. Smatramo kako je središnja dvojba u pogledu provedbe tog mandata nastala u svezi sa sadržajem izvješća glavnog tajnika UN-a Vijeću sigurnosti o tome kako hrvatske vlasti dopuštaju civilima pristup u plavu zonu, te kako Ťrastući broj teškoća civilnog karakteraŤ, poput zahtjeva lokalnih vlasnika zemljišta i ribara za komercijalnim korištenjem dijelova plave zone, predstavlja Ťopterećenje u odnosima UNMOP-a s lokalnim vlastimaŤ. Držimo kako je utemeljeno tumačiti režim u području odgovornosti UNMOP-a tako da u plavoj zoni ne smiju biti nazočne ni vojne ni policijske snage, a da režim žute zone dopušta nazočnost policijskih snaga s ograničenom vrstom i količinom osobnog naoružanja. Budući da je takav režim posljedica zahtjeva za demilitarizacijom, nazočnost i kretanje civila, bez razlike radi li se o plavoj ili žutoj zoni, nisu i ne mogu biti protivni mandatu UNMOP-a, te kao takvi ne mogu biti osporavani, uskraćivani, odnosno zabranjeni.

By Security Council Resolution 779 (1992) UNPROFOR was authorized Ťto assume responsibility for monitoring the arrangements agreed to for the complete withdrawal of the Yugoslav Army from Croatia, the demilitarization of the Prevlaka peninsula, and the removal of heavy weapons from neighboring areas of Croatia and Montenegro ...Ť. Upon expiration of UNCRO's mandate, the continuation of Ťmonitoring the demilitarization of the Prevlaka peninsula in accordance with Resolutions 779 (1992) and 981 (1995) ...Ť was ordered by Security Council Resolution 1038 (1996), hence the United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP) was established. Considering the fact that the agreement concerning the withdrawal of the Yugoslav Army from the Prevlaka peninsula Ťwas based on the concept of the establishment of a demilitarized zone on either side of the Croatian/Montenegran border (known as the blue zone) and an area free of heavy weapons and fortifications (known as the yellow zone) ...Ť, the tasks of military observers include the close monitoring of the demilitarization of the ŤblueŤ and ŤyellowŤ zones at Cape Oštra (ŤPrevlakaŤ) which is UNMOP's area of responsibility. In consideration of the mentioned points, and having in view the comparative experience of carrying out UN peacekeeping operations, which indicate that military observers often have four primary tasks to perform; to monitor, to verify, to report and to negotiate - we analyzed the performance of the mandate of UN military observers at Cape Oštra. The central conflicting point with regard to the carrying out of the mandate occurred due to the content of the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Security Council in which it was stated the ŤCroatian authorities allowed civilians access into the Blue zone ...Ť, and that Ťan increase in difficulties of a civilian nature, such as claims by local landowners and fishermen to make commercial use of parts of the United Nations controlled zoneŤ, constituted Ťa constant irritant in the relations between UNMOP and local authoritiesŤ. We maintain that it is reasonable to interpret the regime in the UNMOP area of responsibility in such a manner that in the ŤblueŤ zone the presence of both military and civilian police forces must not be allowed, and that the regime in the ŤyellowŤ zone allows the presence of police forces with limited types and quantities of personal arms. Since this type of regime is a consequence of requests for demilitarization, presence and movement of the civilians, regardless of whether the ŤblueŤ or ŤyellowŤ zone is in question, the civilians are not and cannot be considered to be opposing the mandate of UNMOP, and as such the presence and movement of civilians cannot be disputed, denied nor prohibited by the UN.