North Korea → China
This score represents North Korea's relationship toward China. 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.
1 documented factor produce the +60 security assessment.
Why this score?
- +60Continuing mutual-assistance treatyBaseline rule · 2015
The official bilateral record supports the frozen continuing mutual-assistance treaty criterion for China and North Korea in 2015.
2 documented factors produce the -35 diplomacy assessment.
Why this score?
- -15Serious unresolved political frictionBaseline rule · 2015
The official bilateral record supports the frozen serious unresolved political friction criterion for China and North Korea in 2015.
- -20Nuclear tests bring additional UN sanctionsActive event · 2017
China joined the unanimous Security Council response to North Korea's nuclear and missile programme, adding material diplomatic, economic and alignment friction without cancelling the bilateral treaty.
1 documented factor produce the -20 economic assessment.
Why this score?
- -20Nuclear tests bring additional UN sanctionsActive event · 2017
China joined the unanimous Security Council response to North Korea's nuclear and missile programme, adding material diplomatic, economic and alignment friction without cancelling the bilateral treaty.
Coverage gap: 2015 reporter-side trade was below the frozen threshold or unavailable, and no additional qualifying economic institution was evidenced.
3 documented factors produce the -5 alignment assessment.
Why this score?
- +30United Nations voting alignmentBaseline rule · 2015
A rolling three-year comparison of UN General Assembly votes activates the alignment threshold.
- -20Nuclear tests bring additional UN sanctionsActive event · 2017
China joined the unanimous Security Council response to North Korea's nuclear and missile programme, adding material diplomatic, economic and alignment friction without cancelling the bilateral treaty.
- -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.
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 review does not activate a frozen territorial, coercion or settled-order rule beyond those listed.
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.
+21 in 2015 → +8 in 2026
The change is generated from sourced events and frozen scoring rules, not retrospective editorial adjustment.
0 points
North Korea → China and China → North Korea remain independent assessments.
View the reverse direction →ACTIVE EVIDENCE
Events affecting the current score
Nuclear tests bring additional UN sanctions
China joined the unanimous Security Council response to North Korea's nuclear and missile programme, adding material diplomatic, economic and alignment friction without cancelling the bilateral treaty.
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 →