UN Resolutions

1874 ( 12 June 2009 )

2. Demands that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear test or any
launch using ballistic missile technology;
3. Decides that the DPRK shall suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launches;


2387 ( 22 December 2017 )

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and taking measures under Article 41, 1. Condemns in the strongest terms the ballistic missile launch conducted by the DPRK on 28 November 2017 in violation and flagrant disregard of the Security Council’s resolutions; 2. Reaffirms its decisions that the DPRK shall not conduct any further launches that use ballistic missile technology, nuclear tests, or any other provocation; shall immediately suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on all missile launches; shall immediately abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, and immediately cease all related activities; and shall abandon any other existing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner;


...Further decides that this prohibition shall not apply with respect to crude oil that, for a period of twelve months after the date of adoption of this resolution, and for twelve months periods thereafter, does not exceed 4 million barrels or 525,000 tons in the aggregate per twelve month period,...
...this provision shall not apply with respect to procurement by the DPRK or the direct or indirect supply, sale, or transfer to the DPRK, through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels, aircraft, pipelines, rail lines, or vehicles, and whether or not originating in their territories, of refined petroleum products, including diesel and kerosene, in the aggregate amount of up to 500,000 barrels during a period of twelve months beginning on January 1, 2018, and for twelve month periods thereafter, provided that (a) the Member State notifies the Committee every thirty days of the amount of such...

...this resolution are not intended to have adverse humanitarian consequences for the civilian population of the DPRK or to affect negatively or restrict those activities, including economic activities and cooperation, food aid and humanitarian assistance, that are not prohibited by resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017), 2375 (2017) and this resolution, and the work of international and non-governmental organizations carrying out assistance and relief activities in the DPRK for the benefit of the civilian population of the DPRK, stresses the DPRK’s primary responsibility and need to fully provide for the livelihood needs of people in the DPRK, and decides that the Committee may, on a case-by-case basis, exempt any activity from the measures imposed by these resolutions if the committee determines that such an exemption is necessary to facilitate the work of such organizations in the DPRK or for any other purpose consistent with the objectives of these resolutions;

26. Reaffirms its support for the Six Party Talks, calls for their resumption, and reiterates its support for the commitments set forth in the Joint Statement of 19 September 2005 issued by China, the DPRK, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States, including that the goal of the Six-Party Talks is the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner and the return of the DPRK to the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards at an early date, bearing in mind the rights and obligations of States parties to the NPT and underlining the need for all States parties to the NPT to continue to comply with their Treaty obligations, that the United States and the DPRK undertook to respect each other’s sovereignty and exist peacefully...

28. Affirms that it shall keep the DPRK’s actions under continuous review and is prepared to strengthen, modify, suspend or lift the measures as may be needed in light of the DPRK’s compliance, and, in this regard, expresses its determination to take further significant measures in the event of a further DPRK nuclear test or launch, and decides that, if the DPRK conducts a further nuclear test or a launch of a ballistic missile system capable of reaching intercontinental ranges or contributing to the development of a ballistic missile system capable of such ranges, then the Security Council will take action to restrict further the export to the DPRK of petroleum; 29. Decides to remain seized of the matter.


http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Northkorea/JointStatement.shtml

Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of the Six-Party Talks
- September 19, 2005

5) The six parties agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the aforementioned consensus in a phased manner in line with the principle of "commitment for commitment, action for action."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=82&v=1oaAppeUCNw

International intelligence conference assessment concludes short range missile launches not a UN resolution violation.

It appears that one or more of the permanent Security Council member states have employed standard rules of construction, and the final paragraphs of Resolution 2397 to leave plenty of wiggle room for diplomatic maneuver in the ongoing nuclear dispute with North Korea. Therefore, the conclusion of the Global Intelligence Summit in South Korea this week seems arguable if not entirely correct. Andrew Kim former US CIA North Korea Mission Chief participated in the conference. South Korea’s Arirang News did not specify the legal or forensic bases for the assessment’s major finding so it is outlined here. Andrew Kim was quoted only for the practical ramifications of the assessment. Other plain language, in UN resolutions 1874 and 2397 hedged elsewhere with contextual statements and references, provides fodder for the extreme position taken by John Bolton against his own president. Bolton’s position that the short range missile launches by North Korea in May of this year violate “UN resolutions,” oddly finds support not only in the Congress but among the opposition Democratic Party as well. Naturally, his position while referencing UN resolutions generally, necessarily categorically rejects the Six Party principle cited above in paragraph 5 of the September 19, 2005 statement, incorporated by reference into UN Resolution 2397. There is quite intentionally in the latter UN resolution a difference between flat demands for suspension, moratorium, and abandonment of ballistic missile systems, in its introductory paragraphs, and the last provision in paragraph 28 of Resolution 2397 related specifically to enforceability in the form of further punitive sanctions only in connection with intercontinental ballistic missile threats from North Korea, in the form of further test launching.