- Latin:
- âfrom the lawâ
- Related Topics:
- Latin language
- De facto
- Law
De jure
-
What does "de jure" mean?
De jure is a legal term that means "by right" or "of right," in contrast to de facto, which means "in reality" or "in practice". De jure refers to what the law states, while de facto refers to what actually occurs, regardless of the law.
For example, a de jure leader is legally entitled to authority, whereas a de facto leader exercises authority without legal right. De jure is often used to differentiate between a legal standard and actual practice and is mostly used in legal writing.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How is "de jure" different from "de facto"?
De jure and de facto are contrasting legal concepts. De jure refers to what the law states, while de facto refers to what occurs in practice or reality.
For example, a de jure leader possesses the legal authority over a jurisdiction, whereas a de facto leader exercises authority without any legal right to do so.
The distinction between these terms is important when there is a difference between what is legal and what is practiced. De facto practices can be more difficult to challenge in court.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why do people use the term "de jure" in law?
The term de jure is used in law to specify what the law says, as opposed to de facto, which indicates what occurs in practice. De jure means "by right" or "of right".
The term helps to distinguish between legal standards and actual practices, especially when examining if something is sanctioned by law. For instance, de jure segregation refers to segregation that is legally enforced, like the Jim Crow laws in the American South.
In politics, de jure describes nominal authority versus actual authority. A monarch may be the de jure head of state, while the head of government is the de facto head of state. De facto is also used for governments that came to power illegitimately but may later receive de jure recognition.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Can you give an example of a "de jure" law?
De jure refers to what legally exists, according to the law, in contrast to de facto, which refers to what happens in practice or reality.
A classic example of a de jure law is the Jim Crow laws in the American South following the Reconstruction era. These laws mandated the segregation and disenfranchisement of people of color, codifying racial prejudice into law. While racial segregation was largely outlawed during the civil rights movement, the Jim Crow laws stand as a clear example of de jure segregation, illustrating the difference between legal standards and actual practice.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How does something become recognized as "de jure" by a government?
De jure recognition by a government involves formal acceptance of a new state or a new government of an existing state as a legal representative. For a new state, it signifies acceptance into the international community, acknowledging its sovereignty.
For new governments, recognition occurs when an existing de jure government is overthrown, and other states decide if the new government is stable enough to be held responsible for the state's obligations and claim its rights. A common condition is that the new government must not have been established through immoral behavior and must follow international law.
Governments in power are considered de facto until recognized de jure. The decision to recognize depends on political considerations, leading to varied practices among states. Diplomatic recognition determines which group can speak for the state.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why is understanding the difference between "de jure" and "de facto" important in legal cases?
Understanding the distinction between de jure and de facto is crucial in legal cases because it differentiates what is legally mandated from what occurs in practice. De jure refers to what the law states, while de facto describes the reality, which may differ from the legal standard.
This distinction is particularly important in cases of segregation and discrimination, where actions may not be legally enforced (de jure) but still occur in practice (de facto). Successfully challenging de facto practices can be more difficult in court. The terms also apply to governments and leaders, where de jure refers to a legal right to authority, and de facto indicates actual authority, regardless of legal standing.
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
De jure, legal concept that refers to what happens according to the law, in contrast to de facto (Latin: âfrom the factâ), which is used to refer to what happens in practice or in reality. For example, a de jure leader has the legal right to authority over a jurisdiction, but a de facto leader is someone who exerts authority without holding the legal right to do so. The term de jure is often used in legal matters to distinguish legal standard from de facto practice.
In the political sphere, the terms de jure and de facto can distinguish between nominal authority and actual authority. A king or queen, officially appointed or legally entitled to the throne, serves as the de jure head of state in many countries. In some of these cases, owing either to constitutional practice or to incapacitation of the monarch, the head of government carries out the duties of head of state, thereby functioning as the de facto head of state.
De facto is often used to refer to governments that have come into power through illegitimate means, although they may later receive de jure recognition. For example, Augusto Pinochet, who had been appointed commander in chief of the military, led the junta that overthrew the government of democratically elected Pres. Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973. Pinochet assumed the top leadership position in the military government, making himself the de facto president in 1974. He later oversaw the promulgation of a new constitution in 1981, which granted him an eight-year term as the de jure president.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
De jure and de facto serve as important distinctions in litigating cases of racial segregation in the United States. In many court cases, legal action depends on determining whether the treatment at issue was conducted unofficially, in a de facto manner, or de jure, as a legally sanctioned prejudice. For example, the Jim Crow laws that followed the Reconstruction period in the South are clear examples of de jure segregation, because the segregation and disenfranchisement of persons of color was codified into law.
Racial segregation was largely outlawed during the American civil rights movement of the 1950s and â60s, but courts continue to litigate cases of racial segregation into the present. After decades of de facto housing and employment discrimination helped create heavily segregated neighborhoods in Seattle, the cityâs public school board attempted to remedy disparities between neighborhood schools by giving parents a choice of high schools for the students. In an effort to reach greater racial parity, the district classified students as âwhiteâ or ânonwhiteâ and considered race in the decision of which students to assign to schools. The nonprofit organization Parents Involved in Community Schools brought a lawsuit against the districtâs practice, led by the organizationâs president, Kathleen Brose, who was dissatisfied that her daughter was assigned to their fourth-choice school. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 et al. (2007) the U.S. Supreme Court found the school boardâs approach to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, ruling that race could not be used as a tiebreaker in admission to remedy past instances of de facto segregationârather than de jure segregation, which had been mandated by law.
Another example of the distinction between de jure and de facto is in the treatment of Native Americans by the United States government. From 1953 to 1964 a series of federal statutes were passed that âterminatedâ 109 Native American tribes, revoking the de jure tribal affiliation of 12,000 Native Americans, thereby disbanding their tribes, removing their federal protections, and resettling the members in urban areas. By contrast, statutes and court rulings in the 20th century made it difficult for Native American tribes in Alaska to operate, but their de jure status was never directly affected.
De jure may also be used to distinguish between situations determined by legal status as opposed to situations determined by practice (de facto). For example, Germany has designated German as its de jure official language. In contrast, the United States has no de jure official language, even though it uses English (its de facto official language) for government documents and proceedings. Likewise, the term de jure may be used to refer to legal marriages instead of domestic partnerships. If domestic partnerships meet the same prerequisites but no legal action has been undertaken, they may be referred to as de facto marriages.
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
