Paige Arthur argues that donor decision-making is marked by the interplay of four key factors—ideas, interests, institutions, and information. She shows how funding decisions are multifaceted and difficult to predict, as they are bound variously by the principled and causal ideas that provide the universe of possibilities for action on TJ; strategic interests, which may or may not conflict with TJ; the context of particular institutional arrangements (which, in the case of TJ, tend to be limited or nonexistent); and the relatively limited amount of practical and theoretical knowledge that donors have of TJ, including knowledge about the effectiveness of TJ. Arthur concludes (unsurprisingly) that we should not expect to see donors supporting TJ when it conflicts with their strategic interests, in particular those relating to security. She notes that ideas, especially causal ideas linking TJ to a variety of democratization, peacebuilding, or rule of law outcomes, have played a critical role in expanding the possible universe of actions for donors. These ideas, however, have not been given sufficient form and content through institutionalization in most donor agencies, whether in the form of specific TJ policies, or in the form of in-house TJ expertise. The result is a donor decision-making process for TJ that is characterized by fragmentation, incoherence, and possibly ineffectiveness in many (though certainly not all) instances. She finds, additionally, that the clearest idea with the most vocal and powerfully placed constituencies inside and outside of institutions—namely, the idea of the power of trials, advocated by influential lawyers—has garnered the most success among donors so far, measured in terms of funding. Among the many consequences of these findings, Arthur highlights the fact that when donors do choose to fund TJ, it may not always be supported in the most relevant way. The combination of high-profile, “trendy” ideas, but low institutionalization and information, can easily lead risk-averse donors to fall into general patterns of donor behavior: preferring to invest in visible, finite “outputs” like commissions, courts, or memorial sites on the one hand, or in countable deliverables like expert trainings, small-scale community workshops, and research reports. They may resist supporting the more politically risky, long-term, and difficult-to-measure, civil-society-led social change work that is actually at the core of meaningful TJ initiatives—precisely the kind of work that requires strong civil society actors to be successful. She ends by reflecting on the possibility that the apex of globalized TJ has been reached, and that the potential withdrawal of donor funds may spur creativity and change in the TJ field.