Grotius, III. c. 20--Vattel, IV. §§ 9-18--Phillimore, III. §§ 513-516--Halleck, I. pp. 306-324--Taylor, §§ 590-592--Moore, VII. § 1163--Wheaton, §§ 538-543--Bluntschli, §§ 703-707--Heffter, § 179--Kirchenheim in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 794-804--Ullmann, § 198--Bonfils, Nos. 1696-1697, 1703-1705--Despagnet, Nos. 606-611--Rivier, II. pp. 443-453--Nys, III. pp. 719-734--Calvo, V. §§ 3119-3136--Fiore, III. Nos. 1694-1700, and Code, Nos. 1931-1941--Martens, II. § 128--Longuet, §§ 156-164--Mérignhac, pp. 324-329--Pillet, pp. 372-375. [Sidenote: Treaty of Peace the most frequent End of War.] § 266. Although occasionally war ends through simple cessation of hostilities, and although subjugation is not at all rare or irregular, the most frequent end of war is a treaty of peace. Many publicists correctly call a treaty of peace the normal mode of terminating war. On the one hand, simple cessation of hostilities is certainly an irregular mode. Subjugation, on the other hand, is in most cases either not within the scope of the intention of the victor or not realisable. And it is quite reasonable that a treaty of peace should be the normal end of war. States which are driven from disagreement to war will, sooner or later, when the fortune of war has given its decision, be convinced that the armed contention ought to be terminated. Thus a mutual understanding and agreement upon certain terms is the normal mode of ending the contention. And it is a treaty of peace which embodies such understanding. [Sidenote: Peace Negotiations.]