___

• 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.