It aims to resolve differences, obtain benefits for an individual or collective or achieve results to satisfy different interests. It is often done by advancing a position and making concessions to reach an agreement. The extent to which the negotiating parties trust each other to implement the negotiated solution is a key factor in the success of the negotiations. Brinksmanship: One party aggressively follows a number of conditions to the point where the other party to the negotiations must either agree or leave. Brinkmanship is a kind of « hard » approach to negotiations, in which one party brings the other party to the « margin » or margin of what that party is willing to adapt to. Successful Brinksmanship convinces the other party that it has no choice but to accept the offer, and there is no acceptable alternative to the proposed agreement.  The best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is the most advantageous alternative that a negotiator can adopt if the current negotiations are concluded without an agreement. The quality of a BATNA has the potential to improve the outcome of a party`s negotiations. Understanding their own BATNA can allow a person to set higher goals as they move forward.
 Alternatives must be effective and achievable to be of value.  Negotiators may also consider the other party`s BATNA and its comparison with what they offer during the negotiations.  [Page required] Integrative negotiation is also referred to as interest-based, outcome-based or principles-based negotiation. It is a set of techniques that try to improve the quality and probability of a negotiated agreement by taking advantage of the fact that different parties often evaluate the results differently.  While distribution negotiation assumes that there is a fixed value (a « fixed cake ») that must be shared between the parties, inclusive negotiation attempts to create value (« expand the pie » during the negotiation), either by « compensating » for the loss of one item with profits from another (« trade-offs ») or by recreating the issues of the conflict, that both parties benefit (win-win negotiation).  Defence in depth: several levels of decision-making power are used to allow new concessions each time the agreement goes through a different level of authority.  In other words, each time the offer is made to a decision-maker, that decision-maker asks to add another concession to conclude the agreement. But inclusive negotiations probably also have some distributive elements, especially when different parties evaluate different positions to the same extent or when details are allocated at the end of the negotiation. While concessions are mandatory for negotiations, research shows that people who give in faster are less likely to explore all inclusive and mutually beneficial solutions. Therefore, an early counter-stick reduces the chances of an inclusive negotiation.  However, negotiators do not have to give up effective negotiations in favour of a positive relationship between the parties.