The 1990s has been referred to as “the sanctions decade” with good reason. The UN Security Council imposed sanctions only twice up until 1989 - on Southern Rhodesia and South Africa - but then used sanctions well over a dozen times in the following decade, encompassing multiple Security Council resolutions. Very quickly, however, critical observers began arguing against the use of comprehensive sanctions, which were ineffective at changing regime policy but devastated innocent populations, most notably in Iraq. In response, policymakers began developing “smart sanctions” in an effort to selectively target those most culpable in violence and abuse, in a bid to prevent the humanitarian disaster that can result from indiscriminate use of sanctions. By 2000, however, even these so-called smart sanctions came under increasingly critical review.(Tostensen and Bull 2002) One outcome has been the creation of a new, much more narrowly targeted sanctions regime controlling the international trade in rough diamonds - the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme (KPCS). Its unique features include its focus on one particular commodity, and the degree to which it relies on voluntary self-regulation by the industry. The KPCS is an innovation in global governance. It narrowly targets a particular commodity in order to end its use to finance violence and corruption in conflict zones. The KPCS regulates trade at two levels: within countries, the supply chain from mining to export is regulated primarily by the industry through a certification system; and international trade is regulated by states that only permit the export or import of certified diamonds. Enforcement is both through sanctions on industry and sanctions on states. This raises two questions: how does enforcement at these two levels relate to each other? And, if state enforcement is so important to the success of the KPCS, why were the purely state-controlled sanctions imposed by the UN in the 1990s a failure? In this paper, I compare traditional UN sanctions with the sanctions embodied in the KPCS. It has been viewed by many as a more successful and effective form of sanctions regime, despite some significant weaknesses and loopholes. The KPCS transforms a conflict and security problem into one of appropriate national and international regulation and management of a high-value commodity. In the following sections, I first briefly describe the political economy of conflict in the 1990s, which is the backdrop to the emergence of smart sanctions. I then look at smart sanctions, including sanctions on commodities such as diamonds. I then describe the negotiation and implementation of the KPCS, and compare the two regimes. In the conclusion, I discuss the features of the KPCS that are replicable for other so-called conflict commodities, and the prospects for establishing other sanctions regimes similar to this one