States sometimes become victims of political troubles, called revolts, rebellions, coups d’etat, revolutions, wars and foreign aggression. A rebel leader, a revolutionary party, a military junta, or a war leader, a priest or a prophet may overthrow the established government or destroy its power from a portion or whole of the country. The State is then in a crisis. It is to explain such times of crisis and transition, that the two terms, “de jure” and “de facto” Sovereignty, are used. (“De jure” means “by law” and “de facto” means ‘in fact’.)
‘De Jure’ sovereignty means the authority of the ruler or government which is recognised by law as supreme. It is, therefore, the legal sovereign. But, in times of war, civil war or revolution, it may not be uctually obeyed by all or part of the people or country. ‘De facto’ •overeignty means the authority of the person or agency which can in fact or actually compel obedience. So, de jure sovereign has the right or law on his side, while de facto sovereign has might or physical force. Sometimes the de facto sovereign bases his claim to obedience on law, but it is not yet universally accepted. Hence Lord Bryce, the English political writer, defines de facto sovereign as “the person or body of persons who can make his or their will prevail whether with the law or against the law: he, or they, is the de facto ruler, the person whom obedience is actually paid.”
The crisis of the State, however, cannot last for ever. Sooner or later, either the former government or the new one subdues the other. A de facto sovereign becomes a de jure sovereign when, firstly, he succeeds in basing his might or authority on law by making necessary law or constitution, and, secondly, when his sovereignty is recognised by other States according to international law and practice. Hence a successful de facto sovereign, whether a dictator, a military leader, a clever priest, a revolutionary or a usurper, must become a de jure sovereign as well, by making necessary changes in law and constitution. Otherwise his fate is like that of Bacha Saqqa of Afghanistan who overthrew the de jure sovereign, King Amanullah, but was himself soon ousted from power by Nadir Shah, who became then the de jure sovereign by adopting a new constitution.
In a well-ordered State de jure and de facto sovereignty coincide. In other words, right and might go together. The courts recognise only the de jure sovereign. Good government and peace are possible only when there is no split between the de jure and de facto sovereignty. As regards examples, modem history abounds with them. The communist government of China was the de facto sovereign when it overthrew the former de jure government of Chiang Kai-shek.
But since it adopted a new Constitution of People’s Republic of China and was recognised by foreign States, it became the de jure sovereign of the new China as well. Formerly, the Nationalist Government in Algeria was de facto sovereign, while the French Colonial Government was its de jure sovereign. But as the Algerians drove out the French colonialists from their country, their National Government became both de facto and de jure sovereign.