9 Most Important Differences between De Facto and De Jure Recognition

9 Most Important Differences between De Facto and De Jure Recognition are given below:

De Facto Recognition:

1. De facto recognition is provisional.

2. It is only a fact, but not legal.

3. Generally, the State to which a de facto recognition is granted shall have two rival governments.

4. It may be withdrawn at any time by recognizing State.

5. Diplomatic representatives are not exchanged

6. It depends upon ‘wait and see’ policy.

7. The rules of State succession do not apply.

8. De facto cannot recover a public debt or state asset.

9. Even though a State gets de facto recognition by majority of nations may not be entitled to get the membership in UN.

De Jure Recognition:

1. It is permanent and final.

2. It is fully legal and rightful.

3. The State to which de jure recognition is granted shall have only one Government.

4. Generally, it cannot be withdrawn so easily

5. Diplomatic representatives are exchanged.

6. De jure recognition may be given without de facto recognition. It can be given directly.

7. The rules of State succession apply.

8. Only a de jure government can recover a public debt or state asset.

9. The recognized state which gets de jure recognition by majority of nations shall be entitled to get membership in UN.

The difference between de facto and de jure recognition is chiefly political rather than legal. The conditions under international law for the recognition of a new regime as the de facto Government of a State are that new regime has in fact effective control over most of the State’s territory and that this control seems likely to continue.

The conditions for the recognition of a new regime as the de jure Government of a State are that the new regime should not merely have effective control over most of the State’s territory, but that it should, in fact, be firmly established.

The effectiveness of a Government is, of course, a sine qua non of recognition of an entity as the government of a state; recognition of an entity before it has become effective is “premature” and intervention in a State’s affairs contrary to international law.

However, Prof. Kelsen opines: “From the juristic point of view, the distinction between de jure and de facto recognition is of no importance. Any codification of International law relating to recognition can ignore it.”