The management of natural resources figures prominently on the international security agenda. Resources such as timber, diamonds, and narcotics have financed about a third of civil wars since the late 19805.' Increased demand for strategic raw materials such as oil is also raising concern about instability in producing countries and international tensions. More generally, mismanagement affects the life of millions of people through poor economic growth, high inequalities, corruption, authoritarianism, and conflicts. Since the early 19705, the developmental record of many dependent countries is so poor that the idea of a resource curse is now widespread among economists.2As the international security policy community grew increasingly aware of the importance of governance in relation to conflict, specific challenges were identified, policies drawn or revised, and lessons learned.' UN sanction regimes reinvigorated by the end of the Cold War have mostly targeted sectors. Major external military interventions, including by private military companies (PMCs), have also sought to take control of production areas to deprive rebel forces or rogue governments of crucial revenues. A significant number of peace agreements also included specific references to the allocation and sharing of revenues. Overall, resource-oriented initiatives have been geared at ending some two dozen armed conflicts since 1989.4Failing to account for the manner by which resources are exploited and revenues located has left countless people at best economically marginalized. At worst it has contributed to making them the victims of repressive regimes or protracted conflicts, as is so tragically demonstrated in Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of Congo.5 Resource management can provide multiple opportunities to improve human security in producing countries-notably by keeping revenues out of the hands of peace spoilers and generating broad benefits for local populations. Despite broad support for reforming management in the interest of peace and security, many of these initiatives have also received pointed criticisms.6 Economic sanctions and military operations imposed on Iraq, for example, were rightly denounced as harmful to the Iraqi population. Yet, rather than justifying complaisance and inaction, these criticisms call for initiatives that set as a priority the individual and collective security of populations in producing countries.This article reviews some of the main challenges to management in relation to armed conflicts, focusing on the issue of revenue transparency and accountability.7 The following sections examine management priorities and challenges in contexts of conflict prevention, conflict termination, and postconflict recovery. Although transitions between war and peace are most frequently blurred and multifaceted, these three particular contexts provide a basic framework to examine the main initiatives and their relevance for countries recently affected by armed conflicts.MANAGING RESOURCE REVENUES TO PREVENT CONFLICTSConflict prevention through revenue management mostly falls under the general agendas of good governance and sound fiscal and macroeconomic policies. A central priority is to combine fairness in revenue distribution with greater transparency and accountability. This requires strong institutions reflecting the interests of local populations. Unfortunately, the negative effects of revenue windfalls on institutions are well documented. They include corruption, authoritarianism, and policy capture by vested interests.8 Arguably, addressing these likely effects requires enforceable international standards and effective domestic democracy. Both, however, face numerous challenges.At the international level, a first challenge results from sovereignty claims and a lack of financial leverage: resource-rich states need not bow to the demands of donor countries and international agencies. …