Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
How do those in power use war, a pandemic, or another major crisis to expand their authority?
War, pandemic or major security crisis can justifiably require faster decisions and temporary restrictions, but at the same time reduce the usual space for government control. The executive power can take over the powers of the assembly, limit assembly and movement, expand surveillance, shorten public debate and mark the data as secret.
Citizens in fear more easily accept measures whose price in peacetime would be more seriously checked. The danger is not only in the first decision, but in who determines that the threat is still ongoing and who checks for abuse. Democratic protection exists when measures are necessary for a specific danger, proportionate, publicly reasoned, time-limited and under the actual control of the court and assembly that can say “no”.
During the 2020 pandemic, Serbia declared a state of emergency, limited movement and assembly, and quickly changed the rules. The most contentious thing was not that the state reacted to a dangerous disease, but that the parliament was suppressed, the decisions were concentrated in the executive power, and the public debate and control were narrowed. The crisis thus showed how the real danger can at the same time justify the necessary measures and open the space for too much power.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
Legal analyses and prEUgovor problematize the declaration and implementation of the state of emergency without timely parliamentary supervision, as well as the legality and proportionality of individual restrictions.
Authoritarian risk does not arise from the urgency itself, but from the absence of time, evidence, control and the possibility to challenge the decision while it is still going on.
Yes the pandemic is a clear Serbian example of the expansion of executive power in the crisis.
COVID-19 required rapid action and some restrictions were justified by public health. Each measure must be assessed especially according to the evidence, necessity and proportionality available at the time.
Special measures may be really necessary in a crisis. It is important whether they are necessary, proportionate, time-limited, public and controlled by an independent.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
comparing several countries or cases
Gross, O. i Ní Aoláin, F. (2006), Law in Times of Crisis: Emergency Powers in Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Gross and N Aoláin show why the crisis can really require faster and wider state powers, but also why the emergency regime creates special legal and institutional risks. The key is how the powers are limited and who decides when the exception stops.
review more research
Scheuerman, W. E. (2006), „Emergency Powers“, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2: 257–277.
- Contribution to this answer
- Scheuerman shows that the executive power has strong incentives to declare, extend and politically benefit emergency situations. That is why the duration and control of emergency powers is a central democratic problem.
review more research
Ginsburg, T. i Huq, A. Z. (2018), How to Save a Constitutional Democracy, University of Chicago Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Ginsburg and Huq provide a broader framework: a crisis can ease the weakening of constitutional restrictions, rights and institutional responsibilities if the exception becomes a justification for the continued strengthening of executive power.
review more research
Haggard, S. i Kaufman, R. R. (2021), Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Haggard and Kaufman show a wider pattern of democratic backwardness through polarization and gradual weakening of government restrictions. For extraordinary powers and crises, this work is indirect.
review more research
Lührmann, A. (2021), „Disrupting the Autocratization Sequence: Towards Democratic Resilience“, Democratization 28(5): 1017–1039.
Lührmann, A. (2021), "Disrupting the Autocratization Sequence: Towards Democratic Resilience", Democratization 28(5): 1017–1039.
- Contribution to this answer
- Lhrmann shows that autocracy is not an inevitable outcome of a political crisis: the process has several stages and can be interrupted by resistance from institutions, the opposition and society. The crisis opens the possibility, but does not determine the result.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
Legal study of the country - Verified 21.08.2026
Krstić, Ivana, i Marko Davinić. 2021. “Serbia: Legal Response to Covid-19.” U: The Oxford Compendium of National Legal Responses to Covid-19. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law-occ19/law-occ19-e7
Krstić, Ivana, and Marko Davinić. 2021. “Serbia: Legal Response to Covid-19.” In: The Oxford Compendium of National Legal Responses to Covid-19. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law-occ19/law-occ19-e7
- What the source records
- The study shows that urgent decisions in Serbia were made with a weak parliamentary role and more contentious issues of legality and proportionality.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that the pandemic allowed for the rapid spread of executive power with narrowed parliamentary scrutiny, even though the real danger required certain urgent measures.
- Source limitation
- Legal analysis assesses norms and procedures, but does not measure their social and political consequences.
Local NGO coalition extraordinary monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
Koalicija prEUgovor. 2020. Alarm izveštaj: napredak Srbije u poglavljima 23 i 24, sa posebnim osvrtom na vanredno stanje. Beograd: prEUgovor.
Coalition prEUgovor. 2020. Alarm report: Serbia’s progress in chapters 23 and 24, with special reference to the state of emergency. Belgrade: prEUgovor.
- What the source records
- The report deals with the declaration of a state of emergency without a parliamentary session, the rapid change of rules and limited control of the executive power.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that the pandemic allowed for the rapid spread of executive power with narrowed parliamentary scrutiny, even though the real danger required certain urgent measures.
- Source limitation
- It was created in the middle of the crisis, so some consequences and later court outcomes were not yet known.
The Official International Legal Standard - Verified 21.08.2026
Venice Commission. 2020. Interim Report on the Measures Taken in the EU Member States as a Result of the COVID-19 Crisis and Their Impact on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights. CDL-AD(2020)018.
- What the source records
- The Commission underlines the necessity, proportionality, temporaryity and effective parliamentary and judicial supervision of extraordinary powers.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that the pandemic allowed for the rapid spread of executive power with narrowed parliamentary scrutiny, even though the real danger required certain urgent measures.
- Source limitation
- The report sets a comparative standard and is not a special investigation of Serbia or an assessment of every Serbian measure.
Domestic NGOs annual monitoring of human rights - Verified 21.08.2026
Beogradski centar za ljudska prava. 2026. Human Rights in Serbia 2025. Urednik Dušan Pokuševski. Beograd: Beogradski centar za ljudska prava.
Belgrade Centre for Human Rights. 2026. Human Rights in Serbia 2025. Editor Dušan Pokuševski. Belgrade: Belgrade Centre for Human Rights.
- What the source records
- The twenty-eighth annual report documents systemic pressures and violations of rights in 2025 and brings together data from institutions and sectoral organisations on the prosecution of protest participants and incidents towards journalists.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that the pandemic allowed for the rapid spread of executive power with narrowed parliamentary scrutiny, even though the real danger required certain urgent measures.
- Source limitation
- The report follows the rights and institutional treatment, not the type of regime; part of the numerical data is taken from state authorities and other organizations and should be read with their original records.
Reviewed comparative legal work - Reviewed full peer-reviewed work, method, Serbian subjects and conclusions
Beretka, Katinka, and Áron Ősze. 2025. ‘Constitutional Court Attitudes and the COVID-19 Pandemic—Case Studies of Hungary, Serbia, and Croatia.’ Frontiers in Political Science 7: 1540881. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1540881
- What the source records
- Analyses how the Constitutional Court of Serbia controlled the declaration of the state of emergency and limitations of rights during the actual health emergency.
- Claim it supports
- Supports the mechanism of concentration of executive power with weak judicial control, without denying the reality of the health crisis.
- Source limitation
- Legal analysis of decisions does not measure the epidemiological necessity of every measure or the motives of the decision-makers.
Primary legal source Constitutional Court decision - Reviewed official decision, statement and explanation
Ustavni sud Republike Srbije. 2020. Rešenje IУо-42/2020 od 21. maja 2020. godine.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Serbia. 2020 Decision IUo-42/2020 of 21 May 2020.
- What the source records
- The primary decision shows that the Constitutional Court considered the decision on the state of emergency and accepted the rationale for the impossibility of the Assembly session.
- Claim it supports
- Document the institutional path by which extended executive decision-making received formal constitutional confirmation.
- Source limitation
- The majority court decision is not a neutral confirmation of the proportionality of all measures nor evidence of a permanent authoritarian motive.
Domestic NGOs annual legal and human rights monitoring - Review of the full annual report and chapters on the state of emergency and limitation of rights
Beogradski centar za ljudska prava. 2021. Ljudska prava u Srbiji 2020. Urednici Dušan Pokuševski i Vesna Petrović. Beograd: Beogradski centar za ljudska prava.
Belgrade Centre for Human Rights. 2021. Human Rights in Serbia 2020 Editors Dusan Pokusevski and Vesna Petrović. Belgrade: Belgrade Centre for Human Rights.
- What the source records
- Provides a chronology of the declaration of the state of emergency, restrictions on rights, frequent changes to the rules and work of institutions during 2020.
- Claim it supports
- Adds domestic legal monitoring of specific channels through which the crisis has concentrated decision-making.
- Source limitation
- Advocacy monitoring and the same manufacturer as N07; does not establish that any measure was unnecessary.
Primary legal source - Verified 21.08.2026
Republika Srbija. 2006. Ustav Republike Srbije, Službeni glasnik RS 98/2006, engleski prevod Narodne skupštine.
Republic of Serbia. 2006 Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, Official Gazette of RS 98/2006, English translation of the National Assembly.
- What the source records
- The Constitution determines who declares the state of emergency, how the Assembly controls the decision and what rights may be limited.
- Claim it supports
- Provides a primary legal standard according to which the necessary crisis powers are distinguished from overstepping or poor control.
- Source limitation
- The text of the Constitution does not show how the rules were actually applied or whether a measure was proportionate.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →