One thing is clear -- the half a million dollar contribution was raised by the Cambodian side of the tribunal and, therefore, earmarked by the donor to cover their expenses. What is not clear is whether this amount constitutes Australia's entire pledge to the tribunal's new fundraising campaign or it is Australia's contribution to the Cambodian side of the tribunal which will be followed by a larger contribution to the UN side of the court to compliment Australia's original contribution. If the latter is true the success of this fundraiser vis-a-vis Australia is although very insignificant financially -- but rather symbolic -- the tribunal's balooning budget in which case everything will depend upon how more than this amount Australia will be willing to contribute the UN side of the tribunal. If the former is true, this amount in itself a far cry from what the tribunal had requested in New York City last week and is not going to make much of a difference in saving the tribunal unless other states will agree to carry the rest of the financial burden. It is very unlikely that Western European states will come up the monies to bridge to shortfall between the dollars the tribunal wants and what it can get. There is a possibility that Japan might come up with a significant amount, yet again, but this amount will be very unlikely substantial enough to cover even half of the shortfall. It is true that no reports have appeared on the US position vis-a-vis the current fundraiser which can be of great significance, if the US decide to provide funding.
It is also possible that the architects of the new budget -- and the subsequent fundraiser -- never expected to get the entire amount sought with one cast of the net, but planned this campaign to last for the entire lifespan of the tribunal with it getting easier and easier toward the end as the donor-states will become less and less willing to let it go under due to financial constraints.