Measuring the Evolution of Relations on the Korean Peninsula
The NKIO Index is a qualitative analytical framework developed by the North Korean International Observatory (NKIO) to assess the overall state of relations between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the Republic of Korea (ROK), and the United States.
The Index is based on a simple premise: the level of tension on the Korean Peninsula cannot be understood through any single indicator. Missile launches, nuclear tests, military exercises, diplomatic summits, political leadership, and official rhetoric all contribute to the broader relationship, but their significance depends heavily on the political and strategic context in which they occur.
The NKIO Index therefore uses a 0–10 scale. At 0, relations have deteriorated to a level at which armed conflict appears imminent. At 10, the parties are engaged in substantive negotiations aimed at establishing a permanent peace agreement. The intermediate values represent the broad spectrum between confrontation, deterrence, limited stability, dialogue, and diplomatic rapprochement.
Importantly, the NKIO Index is not a mathematical probability of war, nor is it a measurement of North Korea's military capabilities. A higher score does not necessarily mean that North Korea has become militarily weaker, just as a lower score does not necessarily mean that war is about to begin. Instead, the Index seeks to capture the political and strategic quality of the relationship among the principal actors.
A Structured Qualitative Assessment
The NKIO Index is deliberately qualitative. Rather than assigning fixed numerical weights to individual events, each period is assessed through a common analytical framework. This approach recognizes that the significance of an event cannot always be reduced to a predetermined numerical value.
For example, a nuclear test is unquestionably a major negative development, but its impact on the overall relationship may depend on the circumstances in which it occurs. Conversely, the election of a government committed to dialogue may substantially alter the political environment even before any concrete diplomatic agreement has been reached.
Each period is therefore examined through several recurring dimensions:
South Korean political orientation — whether the government in Seoul favors engagement, reconciliation, deterrence, or confrontation;
U.S. policy — including diplomatic initiatives, sanctions, deterrence, military deployments, and the willingness of Washington to engage directly with Pyongyang;
North Korean nuclear activity — particularly nuclear tests and significant changes in nuclear doctrine;
Missile activity — including the frequency, range, and strategic significance of North Korean missile tests;
Military exercises and deployments — particularly the scale and nature of U.S.–ROK combined exercises and the deployment of strategic assets;
Diplomatic engagement — including summits, official meetings, negotiations, agreements, and the maintenance of communication channels;
Military incidents and escalation risks — including clashes, incidents along the Demilitarized Zone, maritime confrontations, and other events capable of producing uncontrolled escalation;
These dimensions are considered collectively rather than mechanically. The purpose is not to determine which event "counts" for a predetermined number of points, but to evaluate how the various developments interact to shape the overall relationship.
Leadership Matters
One of the central assumptions underlying the NKIO Index is that North Korea's behavior cannot be evaluated independently from the policies of the governments facing it.
Kim Jong Un has remained the leader of North Korea since December 2011. During that time, however, the political leadership of both South Korea and the United States has changed repeatedly. The resulting variations in policy have had a profound effect on the diplomatic and strategic environment surrounding the Korean Peninsula.
The contrast between 2017 and 2018 illustrates this particularly well. In 2017, relations reached an exceptionally dangerous level, characterized by nuclear and ICBM tests, large-scale military deployments, and increasingly threatening rhetoric between Pyongyang and Washington. In 2018, the same North Korean leader participated in an unprecedented series of summits with both South Korean President Moon Jae-in and U.S. President Donald Trump.
This does not mean that leadership alone determines the behavior of North Korea. Structural factors—including the nuclear program, military capabilities, sanctions, and relations with China and Russia—remain fundamental. It does mean, however, that political intentions and leadership choices are essential variables in understanding why the same strategic environment can produce radically different levels of tension.
For this reason, the political orientation of the South Korean government receives particular attention in the NKIO Index. Changes in Seoul can fundamentally alter the prospects for inter-Korean communication, confidence-building measures, economic cooperation, and crisis management.
Restraint Is Also a Signal
The Index also deliberately accounts for the absence of destabilizing events.
The absence of a nuclear test, for example, is not equivalent to denuclearization. North Korea may continue to expand and modernize its nuclear arsenal without conducting an additional test. Nevertheless, a prolonged absence of nuclear testing can represent a meaningful form of strategic restraint when compared with periods of rapid escalation.
Similarly, the absence of major military incidents or direct confrontation can be significant even when diplomatic relations remain poor. Stability should therefore not be confused with friendship or cooperation. Two adversaries can maintain a highly militarized relationship while successfully avoiding escalation.
This distinction is particularly important when interpreting periods such as 2021 or 2025–present, in which relations may remain fundamentally adversarial while nevertheless becoming less confrontational than during periods of acute crisis.
Reading the Index
The NKIO Index should therefore be understood primarily as a historical and analytical indicator of relational dynamics.
A low score indicates that political relations are characterized by confrontation, limited communication, military pressure, and a high degree of mutual distrust. A middle-range score indicates a relatively stable but adversarial relationship, or a situation in which dialogue and confrontation coexist. A high score indicates sustained diplomatic engagement, confidence-building measures, and meaningful efforts to establish a more durable political settlement.
The Index does not assume that progress is linear. Periods of rapid rapprochement can be followed by equally rapid deterioration, while prolonged periods of hostility may contain important stabilizing elements. The Korean Peninsula has repeatedly demonstrated that diplomatic breakthroughs and strategic crises can emerge with remarkable speed.
The purpose of the NKIO Index is therefore not to predict the future with mathematical precision. Rather, it provides a consistent framework through which the evolution of the relationship can be observed, compared, and discussed over time.
By applying the same analytical framework across the Kim Jong Un era, the NKIO Index seeks to make visible the broader trajectory of relations between North Korea, South Korea, and the United States—from periods of extreme confrontation to moments of unprecedented diplomatic engagement, and back again.
Ultimately, the Index is intended to answer a deceptively simple question:How close—or how far—are the principal actors on the Korean Peninsula from a political environment in which meaningful peace negotiations can take place?