Диссертация (1155544), страница 39
Текст из файла (страница 39)
/ by M. Batra. – NewDelhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2010. – 594 p.99. Murphy, P. A practical approach to evidence. – London: Blackstone, 1986. –547 p.100. Nokes, G.D. An Introduction to Evidence, 2nd ed. – London: Sweet & Maxwell,1956. – 480 p.101. Peters, M. Law of Evidence in Malaysia. – Kuala Lumpur: LexisNexis, 2013. –461 p.102. Pinsler, J. Evidence and the Litigation Process, 4th ed.
– Singapore: LexisNexis,2013. – 947 p.103. Salim, R., Cheong, M.F. Evidence In Malaysia And Singapore: Cases, Materialsand Commentary, – 3rd ed. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis, 2013. – 728 p.104. Stephen, J.F. Introduction to the Indian Evidence Act: Principals of judicialevidence. –London: MacMillan and Co, 1872. – 232 p.105.
Tan K.Y.L. The Singapore Legal System, 2nd ed. – Singapore: SingaporeUniversity Press, 1999. – 531 p.164106. Taylor, J.P. A Treatise on the Law of Evidence as Administered in England andIreland. 2nd ed. – London: W. Maxwell, 1855. – 764 p.107. Thayer, J.B. A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law. – Boston:Little Brown & Co., 1898. – 636 p.108. Twining, W. Legal Theory and Common Law. – Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. –267 p.109. Walker, M.G., Walker, R.J. The English Legal System, 4th ed.
– London:Butterworths, 1976. – 616 p.110. Wilkinson, M., Burton, J. Reform of the civil process in Hong Kong. – HongKong: Butterworths Asia, 2000. – 339 p.111. Wilkinson, M., Cheung E., Booth Ch.N. A Guide to Civil Procedure in HongKong, 4th ed. – Hong Kong: LexisNexis 2011. – 1127 p.112. Young, S.N.M., Stone, J. Civil Forfeiture for Hong Kong? A Discussion Paper ofthe Hong Kong Civil Forfeiture Project. – Hong Kong: Centre for Comparative andPublic law, University of Hong Kong, 2006. – 69 p.113.
Young, S.N.M. Hong Kong Evidence Casebook. – Hong Kong: Sweet andMaxwell Asia, 2014. – 930 p.III. Научные статьи и докладыа) на русском языке:114. Афанасьев, С.Ф. Специфика судебного познания в гражданском процессе //Арбитражный и гражданский процесс. – 1999. – № 2. – С.
27-28.115. Трощинский, П.В. Правовая система Китайской Народной Республики:становление, развитие и характерные особенности // Вестник Университета имениО.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА). – 2015. – № 5. – С. 99-117.116. Чан, Питер К.Х. Реформа гражданского процесса в Гонконге: критическийвзгляд на применение реформы на практике // Вестник гражданского процесса.
–2013. – № 5 (Справочно-правовая система «Консультант Плюс»).117. Черепанов, В.А. Презумпции в гражданском процессе Гонконга, Сингапура иМалайзии // Пробелы в российском законодательстве. Юридический журнал. – М.:Издательский дом «Юр-ВАК», 2014. – № 6 – С. 87-90.118. Черепанов, В.А. Классификация доказательств в гражданском процессеГонконга, Сингапура и Малайзии // Бизнес в законе. Экономическо-юридическийжурнал. – М.: Издательский дом «Юр-ВАК», 2015. – № 6. – С.
52-57.119. Черепанов, В.А. Теоретические и практические аспекты доказывания вгражданском процессе Гонконга, Сингапуре и Малайзии // Социальнополитические науки. – М.: Изд. дом «Юр-ВАК», 2016 – № 4. С. 145-149.б) на английском языке:120. Abbas, A.N. The Islamic Legal System in Singapore // Pacific Rim Law andPolicy Journal.
– 2012. – Vol. 21. – № 1. – pp.163-188.121. Black, A. Lessons from Singapore: an Evaluation of the Singapore Model of LegalPluralism // Asian Law Institute Working Paper Series. – July 2012. – № 026. – pp. 1-26.122. Bull, C., Pinsler J. Civil Procedure // Singapore academy of law annual review ofSingapore Cases. – 2007. – № 8. pp. 99-123.123. Chan, P.C.H., Chan, D., Lei, Ch.
China: Hong Kong. Selective Adoption of theEnglish Woolf Reforms // Civil Litigation in China and Europe: Essays on the Role of the165Judge and the Parties / by ed. C.H. van Rhee, Fu Yulin. – Dordrecht: Springer Science. –2014. – pp. 71-125.124. Chen, S., Poon, N. Reliability and Relevance as the Touchstones for Admissibilityof Evidence in Criminal Proceedings // Singapore Academy of Law Journal. – September2012. – Vol. 24. – № 2. – pp. 533-552.125. Chen, S. The Future of the Similar Fact Rule in an Indian Evidence ActJurisdiction: Singapore // National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review. – 2013.– Vol.
6. – № 3. – pp. 361-386.126. Chin, T.Y. Hearsay Reforms – Simplicity in Statute, Pragmatism in Practice //Singapore Academy of Law Journal. – September 2014. – Vol. 26. – № 2. – pp. 398-435.127. Chua, S.K. Electronic evidence: Singapore’s approach // Law Gazette. – July 2002// сайт сингапурского юридического журнала Law Gazette / URL:http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2002-7/July02-feature.htm (дата обращения: 07.02.2017г.).128.
Duryana, M., Ramlee, Z. Cases of electronic evidence in Malaysian courts: thecivil and Syariah perspective // e-Journal of Social Science Research. – 2014. – Vol. 1. –№ 2 // The International Islamic University Malaysia's repository system (IREP) / URL:http://irep.iium.edu.my/38547/ (дата обращения: 07.02.2017 г.).129. Gabriel, P. Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof in Civil Litigation // SingaporeAcademy of Law Journal. – March 2013.
– Vol. 25. – № 1. – pp. 130-181.130. Goh, L.C.H. Sources of law // Legal systems in ASEAN – Singapore. – pp. 1-7 //сайт Юридического объединения Ассоциации государств Юго-Восточной Азии /URL: http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/legal-sing.html (дата обращения: 07.02.2017г.).131. Hasbollah Bin Mat Saad, Hj Abdul Samat Bin Musa.
The Concept and Scope ofDefamation (Fitnah) in Al-Quran Al-Kareem and Its Relation to Freedom of Speech inMalaysia // Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. – 2015. – № 9 (37). – pp.294-299.132. Ismail, Ib. Judicial Certainty and Creativity: An Evaluation of Stare Decisis //Malaysian Journal of Law and Society. – 2004. – № 8. – pp. 81-103.133. Kamarudin, A.R. The 'Turnbull guidelines' proof and evidence under theMalaysian Evidence Act 1950 // International Islamic University Malaysia Law Journal.– 2003. – № 11.
– pp. 263-277.134. Lau, А., Young, A. The 2008 Declaration of Independence by the Hong Kongcourt and anomalies in the Hong Kong Company Law // Company Lawyer. – 2009. –Vol. 30. – № 6. – pp. 189-192.135. Low, W. A Commentary on the Amendments to the Electronic EvidenceProvisions in the Singapore Evidence Act // Singapore Law Gazzete. July 2012. pp. 1121.136.
Meggitt, G. The discovery of documents in Hong Kong: two recent decisions inthe court of first instance // Hong Kong Law Journal. – 2012. – Vol. 42. – Part 2. – pp.321-349.137. Mohd. Akram bin Shair Mohamed. Quantum of Proof When Case For theProsecution Depends Substantially or Wholly On Circumstantial Evidence: IrresistibleConclusion Test Or Reasonable Beyond A Doubt Test? // Journal of Islamic LawReview. – June 2011. – Vol. 7. – № 1.
– pp. 1-35.166138. Mohd. Akram bin Shair Mohamed, Kamarudin A.R. The abuse of the due processdoctrine // International Journal of Business, Economics and Law. – 2015. – Vol. 8. – №4. – pp. 26-29.139. Mohd Shukri M.H., Hassan M.K.H. Should a child be allowed to give evidence?The position of child evidence under civil and Islamic laws in Malaysia // MPRA Paper.– 2014 // Munich Personal RePEc Archive / URL: https://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/60173/1/MPRA_paper_60173.pdf (дата обращения: 07.02.2017 г.).140. Mohamed, D. Electronic court system (E-court): development and implementationin the Malaysian courts and other jurisdictions // The Law Review.
– 2011 // TheInternational Islamic University Malaysia's repository system (IREP) / URL:http://irep.iium.edu.my/7628/ (дата обращения: 07.02.2017 г.).– pp. 476-489.141. Mohamed D., Abas A. The process of gathering evidence in civil cases: itsapplication in civil and syariah courts / D. Mohamed, A.
Abas // 4th InternationalConference on Harmonisation of the Shari'ah and civil laws (perspective and practice). –Kuala Lumpur: IIUM Press – 2011. – pp. 475-515.142. Mustapa Sa’di, M., Kamarudin, A.R., Mohamed, D., Ramlee, Z. Authentication ofelectronic evidence in cybercrime cases based on Malaysian laws // Pertanika Journal ofSocial Sciences & Humanities. – 2015. – Vol. 23. – pp.
153-158.143. Ng, C. Use of Electronic Evidence in Hong Kong: Implications of Evidence Lawand Civil Procedure Rules // The Hong Kong Journal of Legal Studies. – 2013. – Vol. 7.– pp. 101-120.144. Pinsler, J. New Twists in Legal Professional Privilege: Communication for thePurpose of Litigation and between the Lawyer and Client // Singapore Academy of LawJournal. – September 2002.
– Vol. 14. – № 2. – pp. 195-230.145. Pinsler, J. Expert's Duty to be Truthful in the Light of the Rules of Court //Singapore Academy of Law Journal. – September 2004. – Vol. 16. – № 2. – pp. 407-422.146. Pinsler, J. Admissibility and the Discretion to Exclude Evidence: In Search of aSystematic Approach // Singapore Academy of Law Journal. – March 2013. – Vol. 25.
–№ 2. – pp. 215-243.147. Pinsler, J. Expert evidence and adversarial compromise: A Re-Consideration ofthe Expert's Role and Proposals for Reform // Singapore Academy of Law Journal. –March 2015. – Vol. 27. – № 1. – pp. 55-90.148. Radhakrishna, G. Challenges in Admitting and Authenticating E-mails / G.Radhakrishna // Kuala Lumpur International Business, Economics and Law Conference.– Kuala Lumpur.
– 2015. – Vol. 4. – № 6. – pp. 17-26.149. Seng, D., Chakravarthi, S. Computer Output as Evidence: Consultation Paper. –Singapore : Technology Law Development Group, Singapore Academy of Law, 2003.https://www.agc.gov.sg/DATA/0/Docs/PublicationFiles/Sep_03_ComputerOutput.pdf(дата обращения: 24.12.2016 г.).150. Sim, D. Burden of Proof in Undue Influence: Common Law and Codes onCollision Course // The International Journal of Evidence & Proof. – 2003. – Vol.7. – №4.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
