The foundations of negotiation theory are decision analysis, behavioral decision-making, game theory, and negotiation analysis. Another classification of theories distinguishes between Structural Analysis, Strategic Analysis, Process Analysis, Integrative Analysis and behavioral analysis of negotiations. Negotiation is a strategic discussion that resolves an issue in a way that both parties find acceptable. Individuals should make separate, interactive decisions; and negotiation analysis considers how groups of reasonably bright individuals should and could make joint, collaborative decisions. These theories are interleaved and should be approached from the synthetic perspective. Common assumptions of most theories Negotiation is a specialized and formal version of conflict resolution, most frequently employed when important issues must be agreed upon. Negotiation is necessary when one party requires the other party's agreement to achieve its aim. The aim of negotiating is to build a shared environment leading to long-term trust, and it often involves a third, neutral party to extract the issues from the emotions and keep the individuals concerned focused. It is a powerful method for resolving conflict and requires skill and experience. Zartman defines negotiation as "a process of combining conflicting positions into a common position under a decision rule of unanimity, a phenomenon in which the outcome is determined by the process." Druckman (1986) adds that negotiations pass through stages that consist of agenda-setting, a search for guiding principles, defining the issues, bargaining for favorable concession exchanges, and a search for implementing details. Transitions between stages are referred to as turning points. Most theories of negotiations share the notion of negotiations as a process, but they differ in their description of the process. Structural, strategic and procedural analysis builds on rational actors, who are able to prioritize clear goals, are able to make trade-offs between conflicting values, are consistent in their behavioral pattern, and are able to take uncertainty into account. Negotiations differ from mere coercion, in that negotiating parties have the theoretical possibility to withdraw from negotiations. It is easier to study bi-lateral negotiations, as opposed to multilateral negotiations. Structural analysis Structural Analysis is based on a distribution of empowering elements among two negotiating parties. Structural theory moves away from traditional Realist notions of power in that it does not only consider power to be a possession, manifested for example in economic or military resources, but also thinks of power as a relation. Based on the distribution of elements, in structural analysis we find either power-symmetry