If you read the article, you would have understood that the territory is a no man's land because of a border dispute between Serbia and Croatia. The two countries will probably keep each other in check.
Reading the article gives the reverse impression: each claims the land belongs to the other; neither wants it.
I'm not sure if this stuff can be interpreted like EX-YU breakup wars were not about land (and which Ethnicity/Religion/Language/etc lives on it)... Or these guys should reconsider why neither Serbia nor Croatia want that part of land... Or ...