Original article (in Serbian) was published on 28/8/2025; Author: Stefan Janjić
During August, a meme spread across social media (Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X) claiming that the authorities in Serbia are unable to declare a state of emergency because a clause in the Expo contract prevents it. Alongside a portrait of President Aleksandar Vučić, the following text was written: “Me, when I hear that I can’t declare a state of emergency, because the EXPO contract says it can’t be held in a country if there has been a state of emergency in the past two years.”
The contract was signed on behalf of the Republic of Serbia by Finance Minister Siniša Mali on August 11 of this year in Belgrade, but the Bureau International des Expositions (BIE), which organises the Expo, denies the claims made in the viral post in an email to Tragač.
First, we checked whether any of the previous Expos – general or specialized – had been held after a state of emergency. We found one such case: a state of emergency was declared in parts of China in 2009, and the country hosted the Expo the following year. However, that example is so distant in both time and context that it cannot be used to draw conclusions about current rules.
BIE: Host country decides on measures within its national context
We contacted the Bureau International des Expositions, which confirmed that there is no clause that would prevent Expo 2027 from being held if a state of emergency were declared within the two years preceding the event. The response came with the clarification:
“In terms of safety, the regulations require that adequate measures be taken to ensure smooth preparation and management of the Expo, as well as a safe and welcoming environment for all visitors and participants.”
We also wanted to know whether the mentioned “adequate measures” are defined in more detail within the contract. After sending another inquiry, we received the following reply:
“The BIE Convention and its regulations do not stipulate detailed, specific security requirements. Instead, the provision is presented as a general principle, leaving flexibility to the host country to implement measures adapted to its national context.”
