Titlebook: Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice; Artur Appazov Book 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 Expert evid

是消毒

書(shū)目名稱(chēng)Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice影響因子(影響力)




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開(kāi)度




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開(kāi)度學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice被引頻次




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice年度引用




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice年度引用學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice讀者反饋




書(shū)目名稱(chēng)Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

rectum

強(qiáng)有力

defray

Book 2016y and presentation of expert evidence. It analyzes and critiques the rules governing expert evidence in international criminal trials and the strategies employed by counsel and courts relying upon expert evidence and challenges that courts face determining its reliability. In particular, the author

anthropologist

trials.Fundamental investigation into the relationship betw.The book is a comprehensive narration of the use of expertise in international criminal trials offering reflection on standards concerning the quality and presentation of expert evidence. It analyzes and critiques the rules governing exper

過(guò)份艷麗

過(guò)份艷麗

Eructation

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24340-5Expert evidence; Forensic science; International criminal courts; International criminal justice; Intern

faddish

extract

The Challenge of Expert Evidence and Rational Decision-Making,The perplexity of expert evidence lies in its dichotomous nature, which generates confusion for the court. One the one hand, the court needs to exert a degree of control over expert evidence, just as it does in relation to factual evidence. Yet, on the other hand, the court needs to defer to its authoritative statements.