China → South Korea
This score represents China's relationship toward South Korea. 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.
2 documented factors produce the 0 security assessment.
Why this score?
- -0.1THAAD dispute strains bilateral relationsActive event · 2017
The official consultation record acknowledges serious Chinese security concerns and the need to restore exchanges after the deployment dispute.
- +0Strategic communication and exchanges resumeActive event · 2017
Consultations and the presidential state visit restore high-level communication while leaving the THAAD disagreement unresolved.
Coverage gap: The reviewed 2015 record documented regional-security coordination but not a frozen-v1 alliance, rivalry or operational guardrail rule.
5 documented factors produce the +65 diplomacy assessment.
Why this score?
- +20The presidents reviewed and expanded the strategic cooperative partnershipBaseline rule · 2015
The presidents reviewed and expanded the strategic cooperative partnership.
- +10Leader, governmental and regional-policy channels maintained regular coordinationBaseline rule · 2015
Leader, governmental and regional-policy channels maintained regular coordination.
- +35Both governments reaffirmed a strategic cooperative partnershipBaseline rule · 2015
Both governments reaffirmed a strategic cooperative partnership.
- -0.1THAAD dispute strains bilateral relationsActive event · 2017
The official consultation record acknowledges serious Chinese security concerns and the need to restore exchanges after the deployment dispute.
- +0Strategic communication and exchanges resumeActive event · 2017
Consultations and the presidential state visit restore high-level communication while leaving the THAAD disagreement unresolved.
2 documented factors produce the +20 economic assessment.
Why this score?
- +35Bilateral trade thresholdBaseline rule · 2015
Reported trade activates the absolute methodology route using the latest observation available for this year.
- -15Annual methodology 1.1 recalculationAnnual recalculation · 2026
The current component replaces the 2015 quantitative threshold or time-bounded structural package with the evidence applicable in the selected year.
1 documented factor produce the +10 alignment assessment.
Why this score?
- +10The governments coordinated on Korean Peninsula stability and Northeast Asian cooperationBaseline rule · 2015
The governments coordinated on Korean Peninsula stability and Northeast Asian cooperation.
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: Maritime delimitation remained under negotiation, so neither the settled-order nor unresolved-territorial-dispute rule was activated.
3 documented factors produce the +20 societal assessment.
Why this score?
- +20Official records documented expanding cultural and people-to-people exchangeBaseline rule · 2015
Official records documented expanding cultural and people-to-people exchange.
- -0THAAD dispute strains bilateral relationsActive event · 2017
The official consultation record acknowledges serious Chinese security concerns and the need to restore exchanges after the deployment dispute.
- +0Strategic communication and exchanges resumeActive event · 2017
Consultations and the presidential state visit restore high-level communication while leaving the THAAD disagreement unresolved.
+21 in 2015 → +18 in 2026
The change is generated from sourced events and frozen scoring rules, not retrospective editorial adjustment.
3 points
China → South Korea and South Korea → China remain independent assessments.
View the reverse direction →ACTIVE EVIDENCE
Events affecting the current score
THAAD dispute strains bilateral relations
The official consultation record acknowledges serious Chinese security concerns and the need to restore exchanges after the deployment dispute.
Strategic communication and exchanges resume
Consultations and the presidential state visit restore high-level communication while leaving the THAAD disagreement unresolved.
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 →