In the prewar period the principle appeared widely accepted that a new state is not bound by any treaty of its predecessor with the possible exception of a treaty locally connected with its territory. In view of the practice which seems to have changed since then, the appropriateness of this principle as a statement of the general rule is open to question. Some authoritative studies on the practice of several international organizations in relation to state succession indicate a recent tendency to recognize that it is desirable to make provision for the stability and continuity of relationships under general multilateral treaties when new states are formed. A body of the practice of GATT not yet covered by such studies seems to merit special attention mainly for two reasons: first, GATT has developed certain devices whereby both the community interest in maintaining the continuity of multilateral treaty relations and the particular interest of new states in asserting and exercising their freedom as to treaty relations should well be accommodated; and secondly, these devices seem to be susceptible of adoption by other international organizations. The present study seeks to examine how these devices have evolved through the practice of GATT, and attempts an evaluation by pointing out their imperfections as well as notable utility.