Anglo-Amerikan ve Fransız Hukuklarında Bilirkişilik Kurumuna Genel Bakış

Yıl 2014, Cilt 16 Özel Sayı, 2115 - 2162, 01.07.2014

Arş. Gör. Fulya Teomete Teomete Yalabık

Öz

Bilirkişilik kurumunun kökeni çok eskilere dayanmaktadır. Teknolojik
ve sosyo-ekonomik değişimler doğrultusunda bilirkişilik kurumuna verilen
dikkat ve önem de artmıştır. Türk hukukunda olduğu üzere, Anglo-Amerikan
ve Fransız hukuklarında da yargılamanın uzun sürmesi ve yargılama masraflarının
fazla olması eleştirilen önemli hususlardandır. Bilirkişi müessesesi
aksayan, geciken adaletin ve fazla masrafların en önemli sebeplerinden biri
olarak gösterilmektedir. Sorunlu olan bu önemli kuruma yönelik olarak
hukuk sistemlerinde oluşturulan çeşitli çözüm önerileri, yeni yöntem ve
türlerin uygulanmaya başlamasını sağlamıştır.

Kaynakça

• Abraham, Henry J.: The Judicial Process, An Introductory Analysis Of The Courts Of The United States, England, and France, New York 1998.
• Altıparmak, Kerem: “Due Process Of Law” Kavramının Amerikan Hukukundaki Yeri Üzerine Bir İnceleme, AÜHFD 1996, cilt 45, sayı 1- 4, s. 219.
• Angell, Ernest: The Amicus Curiae American Development Of English Institutions, International And Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 16, 1967, s. 1017-1044.
• Bartholomeuz, Lance: The Amicus Curiae Before International Courts And Tribunals, Non-State Actors and International Law, vol. 5, 2005, s. 209-286.
• Blom-Cooper QC, Sir Louis: Experts In The Civil Courts, Expert Witness Institute, Oxford 2006.
• Borel, Jacques/Boyd, Stephen M.: Opportunities For And Obstacles to Obtaining Evidence In France For Use In Litigation In The United States, International Law Review, vol. 13, 1979, s. 35-45.
• Brazil, Wayne D.: Special Masters In Complex Cases: Extending The Judiciary Or Reshaping Adjudication?, The University Of Chicago Law Review, vol. 53/2, Spring 1986, s. 394-423.
• Browne, M. Neil/Williamson, Carrie L./Barkacs, Linda L.: The Perspectival Nature Of Expert Testimony In The United States, England, Korea, And France, Connecticut Journal of International Law, vol. 18, 2002.
• Bryant, James R.: The Office of Master In Chancery: Colonial Development, American Bar Association Journal, vol. 40, July 1954, s. 595-598.
• Budak, Ali Cem: Anglo Amerikan Medeni Yargılama Hukukunda Bilirkişilik (Uzman Tanıklar), İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, 1991, sayı 10- 12, s. 827-841.
• Cecil, Joe S./Willging, Thomas E.: Court-Appointed Experts, Reference Manual On Scientific Evidence, 1994, s. 529-573.
• Champagne, Anthony/Easterling, Danny/Shuman, Daniel W./Tomkins, Alan/Whitaker, Elizabeth: Are Court-Appointed Experts The Solution To The Problems Of Expert Testimony, Judicature, vol. 84/4, JanuaryFebruary 2001, s. 178-183.
• Chan, Johannes: Amicus Curiae and Non-Party Intervention Focus on The Ma Case, Hong-Kong Law Journal, vol. 27, 1997, s. 391-404.
• Cope, Sophia: Ripe For Revision: A Critique Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 706 and The Use Of Court-Appointed Experts, Gonzaga Law Review, vol. 39, 2003/04, s. 163-196.
• Corbally, Sarah. F./Bross, Donald. C./Flango, Victor. E: Filing of Amicus Curiae Briefs in State Courts of Last Resort: 1960-2000, Justice System Journal, vol. 25, 2004, s. 39-56.
• Covey, Frank M.: Amicus Curiae: Friend Of The Court, De Paul Law Review, vol. 9, 1959-1960, s. 3037.
• DeCoux, Elizabeth L.: The Admission Of Unreliable Expert Testimony Offered By The Prosecution: What’s Wrong With Daubert And How To Make It Right, Utah Law Review, vol. 2007, 2007, s. 131-166.
• DeGraw, James S.: Rule 53, Inherent Powers And, Institutional Reform: The Lack Of Limits On Special Masters, New York University Law Review, vol. 66, 1991, s. 800-849.
• Demirkapı, Ertan: Anglo-Amerikan Hukukunda Bilirkişilik Kurumunda Yeni Eğilimler, DEÜHFD, 2003, sayı 2, cilt 5, s. 39-75.
• Deryal, Yahya: Türk Hukukunda Bilirkişilik, Ankara 2004.
• Di Lello, Edward V.: Fighting Fire with Firefighters: A Proposal for Expert Judges at the Trial Level, Columbia Law Review, vol. 93, 1993, s. 473- 507.
• Duncan, David W.: A Little Tour in France: Surrogate Motherhood and Amici Curiae in the French Legal System, Western State University Law Review, vol. 21, 1993-1994, s. 447-465.
• Elliot, Catherine/Quinn, Frances: English Legal System, 2002.
• Ennis, Bruce J.: Effective Amicus Briefs, Catholic University Law Review, vol. 33, 1984, s. 603-610.
• Flango, Victor E./Bross, Donald C./Corbally, Sarah: Amicus Curiae Briefs: The Court’s Perspective, The Justice System Journal, vol. 27/2, 2006, s. 180-190.
• Freilich, Robert H.: Editor’s Comment: The Use of a Special Master in Complex Environmental Litigation, The Urban Lawyer, vol. 29/1, winter 1997, s. 1-12.
• Frey, Andrew: Amici Curiae: Friends Of The Court Or Nuisances?, Litigation, vol. 33/1, 2006-2007, s. 5-6.
• Garcia, Carol Henderson: Expert Witness Malpractice: A Solution To The Problem Of The Negligent Expert Witness, Misissippi College Law Review, vol. 12, 1991-1992, s. 39-72.
• Garcia, Ruben J.: A Democratic Theory Of Amicus Advocacy, Florida State University Law Review, 2007-2008, vol. 35, s. 343-358, (Ruben Garcia).
• Güralp, Ayşe Gülin: Anglo-Amerikan ve Kıta Avrupası Medeni Yargılama Hukuku Sistemlerindeki Reform Çalışmaları, Yeni Gelişmeler Ve Türk Hukuku Bakımından Değerlendirilmesi, İstanbul 2011.
• Gürelli, Nevzat: Türk Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Bilirkişilik, İstanbul 1967.
• Harper, Fowler V./Etherington, Edwin D., Lobbyists Before The Court, University Of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 101, 1953, s. 1172-1177.
• Hebraud, Pierre/Raynaud, Pierre: Chronique De Procédure Civile, Revue Trimestrielle De Droit Civil, vol. 58, 1959, s. 357vd.
• Hedman, Susan: Friends Of The Earth And Friends Of The Court: Assessing The Impact Of Interest Group Amici Curiae In Environmental Cases Decided By The Supreme Court, Virginia Environmental Law Journal, vol. 10, 1990, s. 187-212.
• Hess, Robert L.: Judges Cooperating With Scientists: A Proposal For More Effective Limits On The Federal Judge’s Inherent Power To Appoint Technical Advisors, Vanderbilt Law Review, vol. 54, 2001, s. 547-589.
• Jurs, Andrew W.: Balancing Legal Process With Scientific Expertise: A Comparative Assessment Of Expert Witness Methodology In Five Nations, And Suggestions For Reform Of Post-Daubert U.S. Reliability Determinations http://works.bepress.com/andrew_jurs/4 (çevrimiçi 10.11.2011).
• Kearney, J. D./Merrill T. W.: The Influence Of Amicus Curiae Briefs On The Supreme Court, University Of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 148, s. 743-855.
• Kinley, David/Rose, Alan: The Quest For The Truth: A Comparative Analysis Of The Role Of Experts In Litigation, Australian Journal Of Forensic Sciences, vol. 31/1, 1999, s. 5-18.
• Krislov, Samuel: The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship To Advocacy, Yale Law Journal, vol. 72, 1963, s. 694-721.
• Kurland, Philip B./Hutchinson, Dennis J./Benson, Fred Joseph: Too Many Friends Of The Court, ABA, vol. 70, 1984, s. 16-21.
• Kurland, Philip B./Hutchinson, Dennis J.: The Business Of The Supreme Court O.T 1982, University Of Chicago Law Review, vol. 50, 1983, s. 628-650.
• Langbein, John H.: The German Advantage In Civil Procedure, University Of Chicago Law Review, vol. 52, 1985, s. 823-886.
• Leclerc, Olivier: Les Réformes Du Droit De l’Expertise, Revue experts, n. 71, juin 2006, p. 2-19.
• Levine, David I.: The Authority For The Appointment Of Remedial Special Masters In Federal Institutional Reform Litigation: The History Reconsidered, University Of California Law Review, vol. 17/3, Spring 1984, s. 753-805.
• Levine, Eugenia: Amicus Curiae In International Investment Arbitration: The Implications Of An Increase In Third-Party Participation, Berkeley Journal Of International Law, vol. 29, 2011, s. 200-224.
• Lucas, Allison: Friends Of The Court? The Ethics Of Amicus Curiae Brief Writing In First Amendment Litigation, Fordham Law Journal, vol. 26, 1999, s. 1605-1634.
• Lynch, Kelly J.: Best Friends? Supreme Court Law Clerks On Effective Amicus Curiae Briefs, Journal Of Law And Politics, vol. 20, 2004, s. 33-75.
• Martin, James A.: The Proposed “Science Court”, Michigan Law Review, vol. 75, April-May 1977, s. 1058-1091.
• McDougall, Andrew de Lotbinière/Santens, Ank: ICSID Tribunals Apply New Rules On Amicus Curiae, Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, 2007, vol. 22/2, http://www.whitecase.com/files/Publication/ 1c8e8d96-9588-4e86-8c13-523252138974/Presentation/Publication Attachment/37e1af34-0172-4412-a094-5639d34243e6/article_ICSID_ Tribunals.pdf (çevrimiçi 15.12.2011)
• McLauchlan, Judithanne Scourfield: Congressional Participation As Amicus Curiae Before The U.S Supreme Court, New York 2005.
• Munford, Luther T: When Does The Curiae Need An Amicus?, Journal Of Appellate Practice And Process, vol. 1, 1999, s. 279-284.
• Owens, Ryan J./Epstein, Lee: Amici Curiae During The Rehnquist Years, Judicature, vol. 89, 2005, s. 127-133.
• Pekcanıtez, Hakan/Atalay, Oğuz/Özekes, Muhammet: Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Hükümlerine Göre Medeni Usul Hukuku, 14. Bası, Ankara 2013.
• Pekcanıtez, Hakan: Özel Uzman (Bilirkişi) Görüşü ve Değerlendirilmesi, Prof. Dr. Saim Üstündağ’a Armağan, Ankara 2009, s. 397-418.
• Pekcanıtez, Hakan: Medeni Usul Hukukunda Fer’i Müdahale, Ankara 1992.
• Seidemann, Ryan M./Wilkins, James G./Heidel, Mindy: Closing The Gate On Questionable Expert Witness Testimony: A Proposal To Institute Expert Review Panels, Southern University Law Review, vol. 33, 2055- 2006, s. 29-91.
• Shelton, Dinah: The Participation Of Nongovernmental Organizations In International Proceedings, American Journal Of International Law, vol. 88, 1994, s. 611-642.
• Silberman, Linda J.: Judicial Adjuncts Revisited: The Proliferation Of Ad Hoc Procedure, The University Of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 137/6, June 1989, s. 2131-2178.
• Simpson, Reagan William/Vasaly, Mary R.: The Amicus Brief: How To Be A Good Friend Of The Court, USA, 2004.
• Smith, Paul M.: The Sometimes Troubled Relationship Between Courts And Their Friends, Litigation, vol. 24, 1998, s. 24-26.
• Sungaila, Mary-Christine: Effective Amicus Practice Before The United States Supreme Court: A Case Study, California Review Of Law And Women’s Studies, vol. 8, 1998-1999, s. 187-196.
• Tanverdi, Mücahit: Medeni Usul Hukukunda Bilirkişilik, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul 1991.
• Taylor, Robert F.: A Comparative Study Of Expert Testimony In France And The United States: Philosophical Underpinnings, History, Practice And Procedure, Texas International Law Journal, vol. 31, 1996, s. 181- 213.
• Travis, William J.: Impartial Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence: A French Perspective, International Lawyer, vol. 8/3, 1974, s. 492-522.
• Underwood, Richard H.: Truth Verifiers: From The Hot Iron To The Lie Detector, Kentucky Law Journal, vol. 84, 1995-1996, s. 597-642.
• Walbolt, Sylvia H./Lang, Joseph H.: Amicus Briefs: Friends Or Foe Of Florida Courts?, Stetson Law Review, vol. 32, 2002-2003, s. 269-308.
• Weınstein, Jack B.: Improving Expert Testimony, University Of Richmond Law Review 1985-1986, vol. 20, s. 473-497.
• Winter, Bill: Critiquing The Supreme Court, ABA, vol. 69/4, April 1983, s. 424.
• Yıldırım, M. Kamil: Bilirkişi Delilin Mukayeseli Hukuk ve Türk Hukukundaki Durumu, Prof. Dr. Baki Kuru’ya Armağan, Ankara 2004, s. 833-841.