Purpose The Macedonian wine industry has a long-standing tradition and plays a crucial role in the country’s agricultural sector, being the second largest exporter and a significant contributor to value added products. This paper aims to evaluate the influence of the Central and Eastern Free Trade Agreement – 2006 (CEFTA-2006) on international trade with wine in the case of North Macedonia. The authors use Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood (PPML) gravity models following the three-way fixed-effects benchmark of Yotov et al. (2016). Design/methodology/approach The authors use a model of pooled exporter–importer–year regression estimated by PPML. The findings show that Macedonian wine exports to the EU have fallen in the last five years. The statistical model confirms this trend: Being part of CEFTA-2006 significantly increases wine export values. Findings The authors find that CEFTA-2006 membership raises bilateral wine exports by approximately 28% on average (p < 0.01). North Macedonia benefits from an additional country-specific gain of 65% (p < 0.01), placing the combined Macedonian effect at approximately 91% – squarely within the 30%–100% range documented in the trade-agreement literature. A complementary North Macedonia-specific difference-in-differences analysis corroborates these findings with a + 133% effect (p < 0.01), confirming that CEFTA-2006 has a clear and measurable benefit for Macedonian wine exports. Originality/value CEFTA-2006 diversifies export destinations to reduce dependence on a single market and strengthen participation in regional initiatives to leverage opportunities for export growth. However, to maintain and enhance its growth, a comprehensive strategic approach is required.
Purpose The European Union’s (EU) carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) has emerged as a pivotal instrument at the intersection of trade regulation and climate policy, yet its compatibility with both World Trade Organization (WTO) law and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) remains contested. This study aims to examine whether CBAM is consistent with WTO non-discrimination principles, assess its alignment with CBDR under the Paris Agreement and analyze the normative and practical tensions arising when trade-based climate measures interact with the development needs and differentiated capacities of developing countries. Design/methodology/approach This study conducts a legal and normative analysis of CBAM under WTO disciplines, particularly GATT Article I (Most Favored Nation), Article III (National Treatment) and Article XX (General Exceptions), alongside international climate law instruments including the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement. A cross-comparative approach is used to evaluate CBAM against other climate-related trade measures such as the EU Deforestation Regulation and US green subsidies. The study also draws on WTO case law (e.g. India-Solar Cells, US-Shrimp/Turtle), comparative tables on CBDR operationalization across regimes and illustrative evidence from Indonesia to ground the analysis in concrete developing-country experiences. Inductive analysis of policy documents, scholarly commentary and institutional reports further informs the assessment of CBAM’s strategic rationale and legal positioning. Findings CBAM applies a largely uniform carbon standard to imported goods without substantive differentiation based on historical emissions or developmental capacity, creating a direct normative conflict with CBDR as articulated within the international climate regime. While CBAM may be prima facie compatible with the formal non-discrimination requirements of WTO law, its uniform application results in de facto disproportionate burdens on developing countries, risks veering into green protectionism and undermines distributive equity. The study identifies a structural imbalance in which WTO trade rules operate as enforceable hard law while CBDR functions as a guiding principle, leaving climate policy legally subordinate to trade stability. Existing differentiation within CBAM primarily transitional and procedural does not amount to meaningful alignment with CBDR. Without integrating CBDR through mechanisms such as revenue allocation, exemptions for least developed countries or strengthened special and differential treatment, CBAM risks weakening rather than advancing equitable global climate action. Originality/value Existing literature on CBAM predominantly focuses on WTO compliance or economic impact, often without systematically integrating CBDR as an operative legal standard. This study fills that gap by providing a structured normative and institutional analysis of CBAM through the lens of climate justice, moving beyond formal trade compliance to examine distributive equity and the de facto hierarchy between trade and climate regimes. It offers concrete pathways for reconciling CBAM with CBDR, arguing that such integration is not merely an equity demand but a functional prerequisite for effective global climate governance. The study also contributes a comparative operationalization of CBDR across international instruments and jurisprudence, enhancing understanding of how climate principles may or may not be incorporated into trade policy.
Purpose This study aims to investigate the legality and legitimacy of the European Union (EU)'s biofuel policies, which have been widely debated in the international community. Despite the World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel rulings (DS593 and DS600) upholding the majority of the EU measures' legality, the legitimacy of these measures remains contested due to deficiencies in input and output legitimacy.Design/methodology/approach This study uses a textual research approach, specifically case analysis, to scrutinize the EU's biofuel policies. It also uses value analysis to evaluate the legitimacy of these policies. By examining the WTO Panel rulings (DS593 and DS600) and the EU's regulatory framework, this study identifies procedural and substantive deficiencies in the EU's biofuel regulations.Findings The findings reveal that the WTO ruling on the EU biodiesel dispute lacks input legitimacy, as it effectively endorsed the extraterritorial expansion of unilateral regulatory authority while failing to afford affected states meaningful procedural safeguards in the measure's design and adoption. In terms of output legitimacy, the WTO ruling marginalized the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, permitted the EU's unilateral determination of emission reduction standards and remained silent on the symmetrical yet incompatible human rights claims advanced by both parties - thereby depriving the decision of a coherent normative foundation.Originality/value The originality of this paper lies in its analysis of the WTO Panel rulings (DS593 and DS600) from the perspective of international rule of law. Unlike traditional legal analyses, this study delves into the value dimensions, incorporating political philosophy to assess the legitimacy of the EU's biofuel policies. This paper provides a comprehensive evaluation that extends beyond mere legal compliance to consider the broader implications for international governance and sustainable development.
