"The Security Council expresses its grave concern at the deteriorating situation in Syria, and expresses profound regret at the death of many hundreds of people," the eight-paragraph statement says. It further calls for "all sides to act with utmost restraint, and to refrain from reprisals, including attacks against state institutions."
"The Security Council reaffirms its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Syria," it says. "It stresses that the only solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process, with the aim of effectively addressing the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the population which will allow the full exercise of fundamental freedoms for its entire population, including that of expression and peaceful assembly."
After wrangling for weeks over this topic, the Council finally decided to condemn the violence. The main countries arguing against action on Syria are the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). The BRICS response was to let Syria keep its sovereignty and not intervene. Its why they were against the Libya invasion. This is just a statement, not a resolution, so there is no binding power attached to this.
Right now, Libya and Syria present to models of dealing with the Arab Spring. Libya was the western model, which includes a "No Fly Zone" and liberal internationalism. Syria is the BRICS approach, which is to leave the country alone to deal with its own internal problems. Now, no one is in the mood for more exercises in regime change, the U.S. is already too tied down in Afghanistan, Libya, and winding down in Iraq. The BRIC approach is easier, but its not stopping Assad from murdering thousands. Both models are not appealing at the current moment, but the leadership styles are still very stark. The BRIC style is also cheaper.