Briefly, I saw much the same commentary on CNN, Sky TV, and the BBC: North Korea says it's a satellite launch but Western countries accuse North Korea of actually testing a missile. The dominant commentary everywhere I've looked has claimed that there is little difference between testing a missile and putting a satellite into orbit. However, I would disagree in one respect.
Putting a satellite in orbit is not the same thing as delivering a warhead because the latter requires a reentry vehicle (RV), and RV technology is by no means trivial. First, an RV has to re-enter the atmosphere at an appropriate angle and speed, and with a heat and stress endurance so that it does not burn or break up.
Second, an RV with a warhead is not a meaningful weapon unless you can aim it and control its re-entry sufficiently so that it can actual hit an intended target on the ground.

Yes, Japan's H2 rockets have also been seen as potential ICBMs in discourses about Japan possibly going nuclear or being supposedly a "screw-driver's turn away" from having a nuclear weapon (an exaggerated analogy for sure). One important difference, however, is that an enacted UN Security Council resolution forbids North Korea from launching rockets/missiles, although North Korea argues that is an illegal infringement of its national sovereignty (any nation in that position probably would make the same claim).

Paul Midford