China → Bhutan
This score represents China's relationship toward Bhutan. The reverse direction is calculated separately and shown alongside it.
SIX-COMPONENT MODEL
Current component scores
Component values run from −100 to +100 and are combined with the published weights.
No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.
Why this score?
The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.
Coverage gap: The reviewed official record does not establish a frozen mutual-defence or exceptional-security rule.
2 documented factors produce the -5 diplomacy assessment.
Why this score?
- -15Serious unresolved political frictionBaseline rule · 2015
The reviewed official record supports the frozen serious unresolved political friction criterion for China and Bhutan in 2015.
- +10Three-step boundary-negotiation roadmap signedActive event · 2021
The roadmap advances boundary negotiations and the diplomatic-relations process without resolving either issue.
No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.
Why this score?
The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.
Coverage gap: 2015 reporter trade was below the frozen threshold or unavailable, and no qualifying bilateral economic institution was evidenced.
1 documented factor produce the +15 alignment assessment.
Why this score?
- +15United Nations voting alignmentBaseline rule · 2015
A rolling three-year comparison of UN General Assembly votes activates the alignment threshold.
2 documented factors produce the -35 disputes assessment.
Why this score?
- -50Unresolved territorial or boundary disputeBaseline rule · 2015
The reviewed official record supports the frozen unresolved territorial or boundary dispute criterion for China and Bhutan in 2015.
- +15Three-step boundary-negotiation roadmap signedActive event · 2021
The roadmap advances boundary negotiations and the diplomatic-relations process without resolving either issue.
No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.
Why this score?
The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.
Coverage gap: The reviewed record does not establish national-scale people-to-people exchange meeting the frozen societal threshold.
-8 in 2015 → -4 in 2026
The change is generated from sourced events and frozen scoring rules, not retrospective editorial adjustment.
0 points
China → Bhutan and Bhutan → China remain independent assessments.
View the reverse direction →ACTIVE EVIDENCE
Events affecting the current score
Three-step boundary-negotiation roadmap signed
The roadmap advances boundary negotiations and the diplomatic-relations process without resolving either issue.
This analytical score is not an objective fact, endorsement or prediction. Confidence reflects evidence coverage, while incomplete or unavailable observations remain explicit. Differences below 5 points are treated as practical ties rather than a meaningful ranking.
Explore the full timeline and sources in the atlas →