Учебное пособие для студентов омо иф по теме «Судебная система сша»
Скачать 0.63 Mb.
|
| partisan - стоящий вне партии; беспартийный lawmaker - законодатель Syn: legislator , lawgiver to submit - представлять на рассмотрение ballot - избирательный бюллетень to stay on - продолжать оставаться; задерживаться Exercises: Ex 1 Answer the following questions
Ex. 2 Give Russian equivalents for the following words and word combinations: the highest rung on the ladder – minor civil cases – ABA - traffic violations and charges of public drunkenness – to perform marriage ceremonies - a committee of regular citizens, lawyers, and judges - a statewide ballot - magistrate courts - to pass a law - the vote of the people - the small claims court – to reverse the verdict - divorce suits - violations of the traffic laws - the state supreme courts – an original trial – a lower court Ex. 3 Give English equivalents for the following words: дорожный суд - представлять закон на рассмотрение комитета - главный суд первой инстанции - полицейский суд - изложение дела стороной по апелляции – нарушать дорожное право - федеральный окружной суд - суд первой инстанции в ряде штатов США – принимать решение большинством голосов - мировой суд - право рассматривать лишь определенные типы дел - допустить ошибку во время первоначального рассмотрения дела Ex.4 Make up 6 sentences of your own with the words and phrases from exercises 2 and 3. Ex. 5 Supply the word or the word combination from the text which is a periphrasis of the following
Ex.6 Render the article into English В США функционируют параллельно единая федеральная система судов и самостоятельные судебные системы каждого из 50 штатов, округа Колумбия и четырех федеральных территорий. При определенных ситуациях у органов обвинения и у истцов по гражданским делам создаются возможности выбора между обращением в суд одного из штатов либо в федеральный суд, а в некоторых, весьма редких, случаях допускается обращение в федеральный суд с жалобой по делу, рассматривавшемуся в суде штата, но только если речь идет о толковании или применении норм федерального права, если налицо "федеральный вопрос". Подавляющая часть уголовных и гражданских дел рассматривается судами штатов, и лишь относительно небольшая их часть (510%) оказывается предметом разбирательства федеральных судов. Судебные системы штатов. В американских штатах действуют весьма различающиеся между собой системы судов. По большей части их особенности объясняются историческими условиями формирования судебной системы в данном штате. Порою вновь образовывавшиеся штаты заимствовали схему судебной организации у соседних штатов. Чаще всего в штатах используются двух- и трехступенчатая системы общих судов, а также различные суды ограниченной или специальной юрисдикции. Двухступенчатая система общих судов, включающая в себя лишь суды первой инстанции и высший судебный орган, обычно свойственна небольшим по размерам и населению штатам, а трехступенчатая, с судами промежуточной, апелляционной юрисдикции, более крупным штатам, в судах которых рассматривается большое количество гражданских и уголовных дел. Суд, возглавляющий судебную систему в штате, чаще всего носит название верховного суда, однако в ряде штатов он называется апелляционным судом. Они состоят из пяти девяти судей, один из которых назначается председателем суда. Верховные и соответствующие им суды штатов занимаются, главным образом, рассмотрением апелляционных жалоб на решения нижестоящих судов. В большинстве штатов они рассматривают жалобы лишь на судебные решения, которые касаются вопросов права, в остальных также и по вопросам факта. В большинстве штатов верховные суды сами решают, принимать ли к рассмотрению апелляционные жалобы и иные обращения к ним, кроме приговоров к смертной казни, жалобы на которые подлежат обязательному разбирательству в верховном суде штата. В отдельных штатах действует правило, согласно которому верховный суд обязан рассматривать все без исключения поступающие к нему жалобы. В качестве суда первой инстанции эти суды чаще всего издают лишь судебные приказы в случае непосредственного обращения к ним, например с жалобой на незаконное содержание под стражей (приказ "хабеас корпус"), а в некоторых случаях принимают связанные с изданием приказов дела к своему производству, если они отличаются особой сложностью. Особенно велика роль верховных судов штатов в толковании конституций и оценке законодательства штатов в связи с рассматриваемыми ими судебными делами или жалобами на решения административных органов. Значение этой функции существенно возросло за последние десятилетия, когда в отдельных штатах верховные суды стали проводить линию на более решительную, чем в решениях Верховного суда США, защиту прав граждан. Суды промежуточной юрисдикции (термин "промежуточный" иногда входит в их официальное название) созданы в ряде штатов для рассмотрения жалоб на приговоры и решения судов первой инстанции и других судебных учреждений. Они носят различные названия, но чаще всего их именуют апелляционными судами. Иногда в штатах создается отдельный уголовный апелляционный суд, в ряде случаев суды промежуточной юрисдикции функционируют на правах апелляционных отделений верховного суда штата. В их состав входят от 10 до 50 судей. Слушание дел обычно проводят коллегии из трех судей. В некоторых штатах апелляционные суды рассматривают по первой инстанции, в том числе и с участием присяжных заседателей, определенные категории гражданских и уголовных дел. В этом случае процесс ведет единоличный судья. Основное звено судебной системы штатов суды общей юрисдикции, которые выступают под самыми разными названиями, например: в штате Нью-Йорк это верховные суды, в штате Калифорния высшие суды, но чаще всего они именуются окружными судами. В их организации и количественном составе наблюдаются весьма существенные различия. Как правило, они рассматривают по первой инстанции уголовные дела обо всех преступлениях, предусмотренных законодательством соответствующего штата, кроме малозначительных уголовных проступков, и гражданские дела с любой суммой иска, кроме тех категорий дел, для разбирательства которых созданы в данном штате специализированные суды. В некоторых штатах окружные суды вправе рассматривать лишь уголовные дела о преступлениях, за которые может быть назначено лишение свободы на срок до пяти лет или даже только до одного года, что значительно расширяет прерогативы апелляционного суда данного штата в качестве суда первой инстанции. Вместе с тем окружные суды выступают в качестве вышестоящей инстанции по отношению к судам ограниченной юрисдикции, поскольку они вправе в ряде случаев рассматривать жалобы на их решения. TEST Fulfil the test
5. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution sets the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, which covers the cases:
9. These courts are known as district, county, common plea, circuit, and superior courts in different states.
10. Judges for the state courts are chosen in the following ways
11. A trial court has ___________________ jurisdiction
12. Equity law is a system of rules by which disputes are resolved
A) a lower federal court or the highest state court has ruled a law unconstitutional. B) the highest court of a state upholds a state law against the claim that it violates federal law. C) the highest court of a state upholds a state law against the claim that it violates the Constitution. D) All above mentioned
a) Oral Arguments and Writing the Opinion
a) presidents b) law professors c) Supreme Court justices d)Ambassadors 18. In a state court A civil case might involve
19 These courts are presided over by a justice of the peace
Appendix I. Translate in writing form 1. Supreme Court Limits Power of Voting Rights Act Posted Mar 9, 09 (AP) – The Supreme Court ruled today that a part of the Voting Rights Act aimed at helping minorities elect their preferred candidates only applies in electoral districts where minorities make up more than half the population, the AP reports. The decision could make it harder for some minority candidates to win election and for southern Democrats, in particular, to draw friendly electoral boundaries after the 2010 Census. The 5-4 decision, led by conservatives, came in the case of a North Carolina plan that sought to preserve the influence of African-American voters by ensuring that new districts can't be drawn in a way that reduces their political clout—even though they make up only 39% of the district. The high court ruled in favor of North Carolina law, which dictates that voting districts can't split up counties. (Source: Associated Press) 2. Clarence Thomas Strays From Righty Line (Newser) – Clarence Thomas might be the Supreme Court’s rightmost justice, but he’s “never been shy about breaking with conventional wisdom,” writes David G. Savage in the Los Angeles Times. In the latest such instance, he upheld injured patients’ right to sue drug companies, arguing that “agency musings”—in this case from the Bush administration—shouldn’t override state laws to protect consumers. Several years ago, he disagreed with a ruling that allowed federal raids on California homes growing marijuana for their own use, legal in the state but not federally. In the drug case, right-leaning justices Roberts, Alito, and Scalia sided with a drug firm after it was sued for not fairly warning the public of the risks of an anti-nausea drug; Thomas disagreed. Source: Los Angeles Times 3. Ginsburg: I'm Not Going Anywhere Posted Mar 6, 09 (Newser) – Contrary to Beltway speculation, Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't plan to leave the Supreme Court any time soon. The 75-year-old justice has survived cancer before (colorectal, a decade ago), and doesn't see a reason why the recent diagnosis of pancreatic cancer should cut short her judicial career, she tells USA Today. She plans to be on the court for years to come. Ginsburg attended President Obama's big speech Feb. 24, soon after her return from surgery, to show the country "I was alive and well, contrary to that senator (Jim Bunning) who said I'd be dead within nine months." Cards have been pouring in, including one that said, "I don't agree with any of your opinions, but I hope you get well soon." (Source: USA Today) 4. Supreme Court Hears Case on Role of Money in Justice Posted Mar 2, 09 (Newser) – This week, the Supreme Court will hear a case so twisty it inspired a John Grisham novel, the Washington Post reports. At stake: the standards for judicial impartiality. The owner of a small coal company sued a huge one, alleging it illegally drove him out of business. He won, but the larger outfit won on appeal—after its CEO spent $3 million to help elect a new West Virginia Supreme Court justice. That new justice, Brent Benjamin, cast the deciding vote in overturning the verdict, and plaintiff Hugh Caperton argues that Benjamin couldn’t possibly be impartial, and ought to have recused himself. But his opponents argue that Don Blankenship, CEO of AT Massey Coal, had every right to donate to Benjamin’s campaign, and that “probability of bias” is a weak standard. (Source: Washington Post ) 5. Supreme Court Enters the Age of YouTube Posted Mar 3, 09 (Newser) – A Florida man who was Tasered by police three times after being stopped for speeding has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case. But that petition begins not with an affidavit or legal precedent; rather, he included a link to a YouTube video depicting what seems to be severe police brutality. As the New York Times reports, justices are relying on video in a growing number of cases, and it's changing the workings of the high court. In 2007, for instance, the Supreme Court reversed an appeals decision against Georgia police who rammed a car in a high-speed chase, paralyzing the driver. The justices, who ruled 8-1 for the police, relied on video from the squad car, which they later posted on the court's website. Where once justices relied on the findings of jurors and lower courts, video, said Justice Breyer, is forcing the justices to reckon with "Chico Marx’s old question: 'Who do you believe—me or your own eyes?'" (Source: New York Times ) 6. Supreme Court May Have Too Many Judges Posted Feb 16, 09 (Newser) – Chief Justice John Roberts recently praised the present makeup of the Supreme Court, which, for the first time in history, consists only of former federal appeals judges. The move towards a Court dominated by those with judicial experience has been afoot since the 1950s, writes Adam Liptak in the New York Times, but not all watchers think it’s a good thing. “The correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the functions of the Supreme Court is zero,” wrote former justice Felix Frankfurter in 1957. And a recent UPenn study showed no difference in decisions made by former judges and “justices lacking judicial experience.” Perhaps another figure is more disturbing: Only three Supreme Court judges have been appointed without private practice experience—and they're all on the bench now. (Source: New York Times) 7. Supreme Court Needs Term Limits: Legal Eagles Posted Feb 23, 09 (Newser) – The US judicial system is in need of a serious overhaul, law experts write in a letter to congressional leaders. They argue that Supreme Court justices shouldn’t keep their posts for life, instead taking 18-year terms before a shift in status, the Washington Post reports. Further, they say, the justices shouldn’t be allowed to decide which cases they’ll take on. That policy fuels an image of a court “not just powerful but arrogant.” Instead, there should be a separate division of justices who review cases and send 80-100 to the high court annually. Last year, the court gave 67 opinions, the lowest number in decades. Meanwhile, justices with health troubles that pose on-the-job difficulties should be asked to resign, the experts urge. (Source: Washington Post ) II. Read and render the articles: 1. Court to Rule In Suit Against Ashcroft, Others By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A10 The Supreme Court said yesterday it will decide whether former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and top Bush administration officials are protected from a lawsuit filed by a Pakistani man who alleges he was abused after his arrest following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The court granted the government's request to hear the case after lower courts said that the lawsuit by Javaid Iqbal, a Muslim who was picked up at his home on Long Island, N.Y., and spent months in solitary confinement, could proceed. The government argued that the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York would subject "high-level government officials to discovery and even a trial based merely on conclusory allegations that such officials knew of or condoned alleged wrongdoing by subordinate officials." Iqbal alleges that his treatment at a federal holding facility in Brooklyn was based on unlawful racial and religious discrimination for which federal officials, including Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, are personally liable. Iqbal was arrested in November 2001, one of many persons of "high interest" picked up by the government after the Sept. 11 attacks. He was cleared of terrorism involvement, but pleaded guilty to Social Security fraud. After serving more than a year in prison, he was deported to Pakistan. 2. Legal Experts Propose Limiting Justices' Powers, Terms By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 23, 2009; A15 If we had it to do all over again, would we appoint Supreme Court justices for life? Allow the chief justice to keep the job forever? Let the court have the final word on which cases it hears and those it declines? A group of prominent law professors and jurists thinks not, and the group says in a letter to congressional leaders that there is no reason Congress should consider the operation of the high court sacrosanct. "We do not suggest, and would oppose, any interference with the substance of the court's work," says the letter, which was organized by Duke University law professor Paul D. Carrington and signed by 33 others from different stations on the political spectrum. But the group said Congress has every right to address how the court operates, "a subject it appears not to have seriously considered for at least seventy years." Carrington said the four proposals in the letter -- sent to the chairmen and ranking minority-party members of the congressional judiciary committees, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., and Vice President Biden -- are drawn from various studies, commissions and reform efforts that have foundered in the past. He's not particularly optimistic they will fare any better now and notes that even this group was not unanimous on any of the proposals. "The politics of this are very difficult," he said. "Nothing on this is really going to happen until someone invests his or her career on the issue." He's confident of one other thing: "I'm sure the justices would hate it." For starters, the group proposes a form of term limits, moving justices to senior status after 18 years on the court. The proposal says that justices now linger so long that it diminishes the likelihood that the court's decisions "will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern." To get around the Constitution's prescription that justices serve for life, the group would let justices stay on the court in a senior role -- filling in on a case, perhaps, or dispatched to lower courts -- or lure them into retirement with promises of hefty bonuses. It would set up a regular rotation on the court by providing for the nomination of a new justice by the president with each new two-year term of Congress. If that results in more than the current nine justices, only the nine most junior would hear cases. The new policy would not take effect until those already on the court are off, but the current tenure of the court suggests what a radical change that would be. Four of the court's justices -- John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter -- have already surpassed the 18-year mark, and Clarence Thomas gets there later this year. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer are not far behind. University of Chicago professor Eric Posner said the Constitution's call for lifetime appointments is one element of American democracy that is never copied by other countries, perhaps because "it is very undemocratic." "People who wield an enormous amount of power should not have lifetime appointments," Posner said. Relatedly, the group calls for the justice who serves as chief to be limited to seven years in the job, because it has "extended into numerous other political, administrative and non-judicial roles calling for a measure of special accountability." The third proposal deals with the removal of justices in failing health "who are increasingly prone to remain in office and retain their political power even if no longer able to perform their office." It did not name names. But it said the chief justice should have the duty of advising such a justice to resign and promptly report that fact to the Judicial Conference of the United States (if the chief is the one in question, it falls to other justices to report him). And the proposal would deprive the justices of one of their greatest powers: deciding which cases they hear. Justices now comb through the thousands of petitions for certiorari they receive each year, and in recent years have declared a declining portion of them worthy of their time. The court issued 67 merit opinions last term, the lowest number since the 1950s. The number of cases the court will decide this term is a bit higher. "It is increasingly difficult to justify absolute independence for justices whose chief work is expressing and imposing on the public laws on topics of their choice," the proposal said. It envisions a "Certiorari Division" made up of senior justices and appellate judges who would review the petitions and send 80 to 100 each year for the Supreme Court to decide, whether it wanted to or not. "They don't have to decide anything they don't want to decide," Carrington said, which adds to a perception that the court is "not just powerful but arrogant." Carrington said the group sent the proposals to Holder because the Justice Department once had an office that looked into judicial reform and to Biden because of his experience on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The group sent the proposals as statutory texts, it said, in hopes they would not be treated as "mere political or scholarly utterances." In other words, Carrington said, the approach seemed better "than writing another law review article." 3. Roberts Sets Off Debate on Judicial Experience By ADAM LIPTAK WASHINGTON For the first time in its history, every member of the United States Supreme Court is a former federal appeals court judge. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a lively and surprising talk a couple of weeks ago, said that development might be a good thing. Over the life of the Supreme Court, its members were quite likely to be former governors, legislators, cabinet members, law professors and practicing lawyers. That mix of backgrounds and expertise might strike some as valuable, but the chief justice suggested that it tended to inject policy and politics into an area properly reserved for the law. As late as 1972, when Chief Justice Roberts’s predecessor, William H. Rehnquist, joined the court as an associate justice, former federal judges were in the minority. As a consequence, Chief Justice Roberts said, “the practice of constitutional law — how constitutional law was made — was more fluid and wide ranging than it is today, more in the realm of political science.” Since then, Chief Justice Roberts continued, “the method of analysis and argument shifted to the more solid grounds of legal arguments. What are the texts of the statutes involved? What precedents control?” That move, he said, has resulted in “a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective.” Chief Justice Roberts spoke at the University of Arizona’s law school on Feb 4. The next day, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer. Justice Ginsburg plans to return to the court next Monday, but should there be an opening on the court in the near future, the chief justice’s musings about the proper background for his colleagues will carry weight. If President Obama makes a selection for the court, he will confront what law professors have started to call “the norm of prior judicial experience,” and he may find it hard to resist. But there are reasons to question the chief justice’s conclusions. The political scientists who study such things say there is no empirical support for the notion that former judges are more apt to feel constrained by earlier rulings or to suppress their political views. “Former appellate court judges are no more likely to follow precedent or to put aside their policy preferences than are justices lacking judicial experience,” according to a study to be published soon in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. If Chief Justice Roberts was implying that the court became less political as the number of former judges on it rose, said Lee Epstein, who teaches law and political science at Northwestern and is one of the authors of the study, “the data don’t support it.” And not everyone supports the idea that members of the court should have uniform backgrounds. The psychological literature demonstrates that “the more homogenous the group, the worse the quality of the decisions they make,” said Tracey E. George, a law professor at Vanderbilt and the author of a law review article about the consequences of promoting former judges to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was a Justice Department official before he joined the court and was the last justice without a judicial background, was also wary of having only former judges on the court. “It would too much resemble the judiciary in civil law countries,” he wrote in 2001, referring to legal systems in which being a judge is a lifelong civil service career. “Reasonable people, not merely here but in Europe, think that many civil law judicial systems simply do not command the respect and enjoy the independence of ours.” The trend toward looking mostly to the lower federal courts for Supreme Court justices started in the 1950s and was apparently prompted in part by complaints from Southern members of Congress after Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision barring segregation in public schools. The court that decided Brown included Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former governor of California; Hugo L. Black, a former United States senator; Felix Frankfurter, a former law professor; William O. Douglas, who had served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Robert H. Jackson, who had been the attorney general. The Southern lawmakers, according to John R. Schmidhauser’s 1959 study of the court’s justices, urged President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint former judges who could be trusted to base decisions “upon ‘law,’ not ‘sociology.’ ” Before Eisenhower’s presidency, about a third of the nominations to the Supreme Court went to sitting judges. Since 1953, more than two-thirds have. Justice Frankfurter, writing in 1957, had a blunt assessment of this phenomenon. “The correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the functions of the Supreme Court,” he said, “is zero.” Chief Justice Roberts, in his remarks in Arizona, said his court was “very diverse in terms of the experiences people bring.” Justices Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Antonin Scalia all taught law before becoming judges. Justice David H. Souter was New Hampshire’s attorney general. The chief justice and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and John Paul Stevens all had substantial careers in private practice. On the other hand, “over the entire course of the court’s history, all but two justices, Breyer and Ginsburg, worked at one time or another in private practice,” according to a 2003 study in the California Law Review. Since then, the court has added a third such member in Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Chief Justice Roberts did say that the current justices’ limited trial court experience was “an unfortunate circumstance” and “a flaw.” Chief Justice Rehnquist tried to remedy that by once appointing himself to the trial bench in Virginia during a Supreme Court recess. “He heard a case and issued the opinion,” Chief Justice Roberts recalled, “and was promptly reversed by the Fourth Circuit.” He added, “Partly because of that, I can assure you that I am not going to appoint myself to the trial bench.” February 17, 2009 New York Times 4. Ginsburg plans to stay on high court for years, despite cancer By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — One month after her surgery for pancreatic cancer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday she expects to be on the Supreme Court for several more years. In an interview, she also vividly recalled why, on her second day back on the bench, she attended President Obama's televised speech to a joint session of Congress. "First, I wanted people to see that the Supreme Court isn't all male," the lone female justice said of the evening event Feb. 24. "I also wanted them to see I was alive and well, contrary to that senator who said I'd be dead within nine months." Ginsburg was referring to a prediction by Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., three days before Obama's speech, in which he said she would likely be dead from the pancreatic cancer within nine months. Bunning later apologized for the comment. Ginsburg, who will be 76 on March 15, underwent surgery Feb. 5. Doctors removed a small malignant lesion from her pancreas. All lymph nodes proved negative for cancer and no metastasis was found, according to a statement from the court. A decade ago, Ginsburg survived colorectal cancer. She spoke Thursday in her chambers, a temporary, smaller office than usual because of the court's ongoing renovation. Ginsburg appeared in fine form, getting up often to retrieve books to show a visitor. She has resumed her usual schedule of conferences, dinners and travel. Her illness spawned speculation by Bunning and other observers that she might retire soon. Even before Ginsburg revealed her pancreatic cancer, which is a particularly deadly form of cancer, news organizations and court analysts had been watching for signs of possible retirements. Five of the nine justices are over 70. Ginsburg made clear Thursday she has not retreated from her oft-stated goal of matching the tenure of Justice Louis Brandeis, who served from 1916 to 1939. She joined the court at 60, at about the same age as Brandeis did. He served until age 82. Ginsburg, a 1993 appointee of President Clinton, spent a week in the hospital after her surgery. She continued to read legal briefs and was in the courtroom the morning of Feb. 23 when justices returned from a winter recess. She has remained a forceful questioner at oral arguments. She said President Obama sent her a handwritten note when her surgery was announced. "It was expressing his hope for a speedy and complete recovery," said Ginsburg, who met Obama soon after he was elected to the Senate in 2004. Ginsburg, a former women's rights advocate who gained national prominence for her legal strategy in sex discrimination cases, has received countless bins of mail from people across the country, of all ideological persuasions: "I had one that said, 'I don't agree with any of your opinions, but I hope you get well soon.' " |
Похожие:
 | Учебное пособие для студентов регионоведов и английского отделения... Михайлов Ю. В. История сша: Учебное пособие для студентов-регионоведов и факультета лингвистики и международного сотрудничества Ульяновского... | | Учебное пособие автор: панкин сергей фёдорович объем 38,54 А. Л.... Методическое сопровождение к презентации урока для учащихся 8 класса по теме “зож основа счастливого человека” |
| Учебное пособие для студентов специальности 271200 «Технология продуктов... Учебное пособие предназначено для студентов вузов, аспирантов и преподавателей, может быть полезно практическим работникам |  | Психология Учебное пособие Учебное пособие предназначено для студентов заочного отделения и обучающихся в сокращенные сроки |
| Учебное пособие для студентов педагогических учебных заведений Педагогика. Учебное пособие для студентов педаго гических вузов и педагогических колледжей / Под ред. П. И. Пидкасистого. М: Педагогическое... | | Учебное пособие по политологии. Владикавказ: 2015 г Учебное пособие предназначено для студентов очной и заочной формы обучения направления "бакалавр", преподавателей, аспирантов |
| Учебное пособие Печатается по решению Учебно-методической комиссии... Учебное пособие предназначено для студентов, изучающих дополнительные разделы сейсморазведки | | Учебное пособие к курсу “Upstream” Уровни А2―В1 Издательство «мгимо-университет» Учебное пособие предназначено для студентов 2 курса факультета мэо, которые изучают английский как второй иностранный язык |
| Учебное пособие для студентов технического отделения по дисциплине «Немецкий язык» Учебное пособие предназначено для студентов Омгкпт технического отделения специальностей 1705, 1706 | | Социально-политическая система США и канады Сша и Канады” составлена в соответствии с требованиями Государственного образовательного стандарта высшего профессионального образования... |
| Учебное пособие по истории и культуре народов Северного Кавказа Для... Учебное пособие предназначено для студентов скгми всех направлений, изучающих курс «История и культура народов Северного Кавказа».... | | Учебное пособие по истории и культуре народов Северного Кавказа Для... Учебное пособие предназначено для студентов скгми всех направлений, изучающих курс «История и культура народов Северного Кавказа».... |
| Методическое пособие для студентов Составил: Андраковский Максим... ... | | Учебное пособие для студентов медицинских вузов Волгоград 2003г Л. В. Крамарь, В. А. Петров Неотложные состояния при острых кишечных инфекциях у детей: патогенез, клиника, лечение: Учебное пособие... |
| Учебное пособие по дисциплине «Теория государства и права» Учебное пособие предназначено для студентов, обучающихся по очной, заочной формам, в том числе с использованием дистанционных технологий... | | Учебники и учебные пособия Менеджмент образования: учебное пособие для студентов вузов Менеджмент образования: учебное пособие для студентов вузов / Под ред д п н., проф. Иванова С. Г. М.: Наука, 2007. 450 с |
