Related Articles:
Abstract
Evaluating UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina, this article appraises mandate design, command arrangements and resource adequacy against protection outcomes. It situates UNPROFOR within the transition from traditional interposition missions to complex, multi-mandate operations tasked with humanitarian access, safe areas and cease-fire monitoring amid fluid frontlines. The analysis highlights gaps between Security Council ambitions and field capabilities, the constraints of consent-based deployment in environments with multiple spoilers, and the communications challenges of coordinating with NATO and humanitarian agencies. It considers rules of engagement, intelligence deficits and logistical bottlenecks that limited deterrence. While acknowledging life-saving humanitarian corridors, the article argues that unclear escalation authority and insufficient force density undermined credible protection, offering lessons for mandate clarity, mobility and political strategy.
Full Text
The body reconstructs mandate evolution, mapping successive resolutions and how they layered tasks without commensurate assets. A command-and-control section examines civil–military coordination, national caveats and fragmented information flows. The operational chapter analyzes convoy security, airlift constraints and the vulnerability of safe areas, assessing deterrence signals versus perceived bluff. A comparative lens contrasts UNPROFOR with later robust models, drawing insights on force generation, quick-reaction elements and ISR support. The paper explores political strategy—contact group dynamics, sanctions, and diplomatic leverage—and how gaps between coercive signaling and credible follow-through eroded compliance. It concludes with design principles: mission concepts tied to political end-states, scalable force packages, integrated planning with regional organizations and transparent public communication to sustain legitimacy under stress.