Here is the text of UN Security Council Resolution 1874 condemning North Korea "in the strongest terms" for its nuclear test on 25 May 2009.

The UNSC tried to tighten the embargo on material and skills needed for nuclear weapons activity from reaching North Korea:

11.  Calls upon all States to inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation, and consistent with international law, all cargo to and from the DPRK, in their territory, including seaports and airports, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;

12.  Calls upon all Member States to inspect vessels, with the consent of the flag State, on the high seas, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo of such vessels contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 (2006) or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;

13.  Calls upon all States to cooperate with inspections pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12, and, if the flag State does not consent to inspection on the high seas, decides that the flag State shall direct the vessel to proceed to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities pursuant to paragraph 11;

Plus it tightened financial sanctions.

Good stuff. On paper.

What does it mean in practice?

Here is the statement by China explaining its vote, which includes this:

I would like to emphasize that the issue of cargo inspection is complicated and sensitive. Countries need to act prudently in strict accordance with domestic and international laws, and under the precondition of reasonable grounds and sufficient evidence. All parties should refrain from any words or deeds that may exacerbate the conflict. Under no circumstances should there be use or threat of force.

The USA seems to accept that ‘force’ is ruled out. But confrontation and biting teeth are OK:

US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said at a White House briefing that the sanctions have “teeth that will bite.” She pointed out that the resolution doesn’t authorize the use of military force.

The U.S. is prepared to “confront” a vessel suspected of carrying an illegal shipment and attempt to board it “consensually,” Rice told reporters. If the crew refuses a boarding or to go to a nearby port for an inspection, the U.S. would make clear “whose vessel it is” and the likely cargo, “to shine a spotlight on it, to make it very difficult for that contraband to continue to be carried forward,” Rice added.

It is rather simple. If eg a US gunboat bares its gnashers and asks an Iranian ship suspected of carrying improper materials to North Korea to stop, and it does not do so, what will happen?

Nothing?

Sooner or later all foreign policies come down to someone doing something on the ground (or on the high seas, or in the air) which defies what others want and can ‘accept’.

Does that defiance succeed? Or not?

That is the Question.