South Korea → Türkiye
This score represents South Korea's relationship toward Türkiye. 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 record does not activate an additional frozen security rule for the 2015 baseline.
1 documented factor produce the +10 diplomacy assessment.
Why this score?
- +10Multiple bilateral ministerial and official channels operated in 2015Baseline rule · 2015
Foreign-minister, vice-minister, consular and economic consultations were held during the baseline year.
2 documented factors produce the +35 economic assessment.
Why this score?
- +15The Joint Economic Committee agreed practical follow-upBaseline rule · 2015
The committee reviewed trade and investment and agreed work on services, investment, infrastructure, energy, technology, aviation and defence industry.
- +20Annual 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.
3 documented factors produce the +40 alignment assessment.
Why this score?
- +10The governments coordinated through G20 and MIKTABaseline rule · 2015
Official records document joint work on development, trade and employment for Türkiye's G20 presidency and foreign-minister coordination through MIKTA.
- +15United Nations voting alignmentBaseline rule · 2015
A rolling three-year comparison of UN General Assembly votes activates the alignment threshold.
- +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: No qualifying frozen dispute or dispute-settlement rule is activated by the reviewed evidence.
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 the exceptional or strong exchange required by a frozen societal rule.
+8 in 2015 → +14 in 2026
The change is generated from sourced events and frozen scoring rules, not retrospective editorial adjustment.
0 points
South Korea → Türkiye and Türkiye → South Korea remain independent assessments.
View the reverse direction →ACTIVE EVIDENCE
Events affecting the current score
No later scored event is active. The current result remains anchored to the reviewed 2015 baseline and quantitative series.
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 →