As an agreement based on THE existing GATT disciplines on trade in goods, the agreement does not deal with the regulation of foreign investment. The disciplines of the TRIPS agreement focus on investment measures that are contrary to Articles III and XI of the GATT, i.e. that distinguish imported and exported goods and/or create import or export restrictions. For example, a local content requirement, which is not discriminatory for domestic and foreign companies, is contrary to the TRIM agreement, as it involves discriminatory treatment of imported products in favour of domestic products. The fact that there is no discrimination between domestic and foreign investors when imposing the measure is not negligible in the context of the ON TRIPS agreement. The Ministerial Declaration of Punta del Este, which launched the Uruguay Round, addressed the issue of trade-related investment measures as a theme of the new round through a carefully crafted compromise: after examining the functioning of GATT articles with regard to the restrictive and trade-distorting effects of investment measures, negotiations should, if necessary, develop other provisions that might be necessary to avoid such negative effects. The emphasis on the commercial effects of this mandate highlighted the fact that the negotiations were not intended to deal with the regulation of investments as such. The Uruguay Round negotiations on trade-related investment measures were marked by strong differences of opinion among participants on the coverage and nature of possible new disciplines. While some industrialized countries have proposed provisions prohibiting a wide range of measures in addition to local content requirements, which were found to be inconsistent with Article III in the case of the FIRA Panel, many developing countries have opposed them. The compromise that ultimately resulted from the negotiations is essentially limited to an interpretation and clarification of the application of the GATT provisions on the questioning of imported goods (Article III) and quantitative import or export restrictions on trade-related investment measures (Article XI).

The TRIPS agreement therefore does not cover many of the measures discussed in the Uruguay Round negotiations, such as export results and technology transfer. TRIM, which, with the national processing obligation of Article III:4 of GATT 1994 T.8A.1.1, China – publications and audiovisual products, point 1. 227 (WT/DS363/AB/R) in Canada – aircraft are incompatible and, in its subsequent jurisprudence, have not assimilated the terms «benefit» and «benefit.» The appeal body`s interpretation of the «benefit» in Article 1, paragraph 1, point b) of the SCM Convention clearly suggests that, although the benefit has some form of benefit, it has a more specific meaning within the SCM Convention. «Advantage» is related to the concepts of «financial participation» and «income or price support» and their existence requires a comparison in the market. The same cannot be said of an «advantage» within the meaning of the TRIMs agreement.