[Footnote 509: The assertion of many writers, that such contracts between subjects of belligerents as have been suspended by the outbreak of war revive _ipso facto_ by the conclusion of peace is not the outcome of a rule of International Law. But just as Municipal Law may suspend such contracts _ipso facto_ by the outbreak of war, so it may revive them _ipso facto_ by the conclusion of peace. See above, § 101.] Attention must be drawn to the fact that the condition of peace created by a peace treaty is legally final in so far as the order of things set up and stipulated by the treaty of peace is the settled basis of future relations between the parties, however contentious the matters concerned may have been before the outbreak of war. In concluding peace the parties expressly or implicitly declare that they have come to an understanding regarding such settled matters. They may indeed make war against each other in future on other grounds, but they are legally bound not to go to war over such matters as have been settled by a previous treaty of peace. That the practice of States does not always comply with this rule is a well-known fact which, although it discredits this rule, cannot shake its theoretical validity. [Sidenote: Principle of _Uti Possidetis_.] § 273. Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the effect of a treaty of peace is that conditions remain as at the conclusion of peace. Thus, all moveable State property, as munitions, provisions, arms, money, horses, means of transport, and the like, seized by an invading belligerent remain his property, as likewise do the fruits of immoveable property seized by him. Thus further, if nothing is stipulated regarding conquered territory, it remains in the hands of the possessor, who may annex it. But it is nowadays usual, although not at all legally necessary, for the conqueror desirous of retaining conquered territory to stipulate cession of such territory in the treaty of peace. [Sidenote: Amnesty.]