De Jure Recognition, often called formal recognition, is official. It means one state or the world community legally accepts another state or government. This acceptance proves a state or government is valid under international law.

De Facto Recognition, or practical recognition, is a bit different. It's less official but more realistic. It's a way to acknowledge a state or government. But, de facto recognition doesn't have the same legal standing and lasting effect as de jure recognition.

As for example, in 1921, the U.K. first acknowledged the Soviet Government by giving it De Facto Recognition and then granted it De Jure Recognition in 1924. Similarly, Bangladesh took shape in March 1971. After 9 months, India and Bhutan acknowledged it by granting De Jure Recognition. However, the United States granted in De Jure Recognition to Bangladesh in 1972, almost a year later.

The main differences between De Jure Recognition and De Facto Recognition are given below:

• De Jure Recognition is grounded in legal rules and global laws. Conversely, De Facto Recognition is based on real-world situations such as having charge of a region or the capacity to enforce decisions.
• De Jure Recognition is legal recognition, whereas De Facto Recognition is factual recognition.
• De Jure Recognition is an official confirmation that includes established diplomatic relations. On the other side, De Facto Recognition is casual, normally without diplomatic relationships.
• De Jure Recognition is permanent and enduring. Conversely, De Facto Recognition is temporary, changing with shifting scenarios.
• De Jure Recognition affirms a state's full prestige and privileges under International Law. But De Facto Recognition may not offer the same level of international lawful status.
• De Jure Recognition typically leads to the signing of formal treaties and agreements. De Facto Recognition does not necessarily result in the establishment of treaties.
• De Jure Recognition involves the exchange of ambassadors and formal diplomatic representation, as there is an establishment of diplomatic missions. De Facto Recognition may not lead to the exchange of ambassadors and the establishment of diplomatic missions.
• De Jure Recognition carries strong legal and normative weight. De Facto Recognition lacks the same level of legal and normative authority.
• De Jure Recognition implies full sovereignty and recognition of statehood. De Facto Recognition acknowledges practical authority but may not guarantee full sovereignty.
• De Jure Recognition is generally more stable and less susceptible to change. De Facto Recognition can change quickly based on political developments.
• De Jure Recognition implies full acceptance into the international community. De Facto Recognition may result in limited engagement with the international community, with varying degrees of acceptance.
• De Jure Recognition cannot be withdrawn in ordinary circumstances, whereas De Facto Recognition may be withdrawn on non-fulfillment of conditions.
• De Jure Recognition can help a state in making a claim to the property situated in the recognizing state. There is no such provision in the case of a state having De Facto Recognition.
• Full diplomatic immunities are granted to the representatives of the state having De Jure Recognition, whereas the same is not extended to the representatives of a state having De Facto Recognition.
• Full diplomatic relations can be granted to a state having De Jure Recognition, whereas the same cannot be granted to a state having De Facto Recognition.
• When a new state comes into existence peacefully and constitutionally, De Jure Recognition may be granted directly. When the new state is formed through revolt or secession, De Jure Recognition can be granted only after first granting the De Facto Recognition.
• De Jure Recognition is the fullest kind of recognition. De Facto Recognition is a lesser degree of recognition.
• Official visits to and official dealings with the state having De Jure Recognition are not kept to a minimum and not avoided altogether in the case of De Jure Recognition; however, the situation is completely opposite in the case of a state having De Facto Recognition.
• A state having De Jure Recognition fulfills all the requirements as laid down in International Laws, whereas a state having De Facto recognition does not comply with all the requirements of International Law.
• A state having De Jure Recognition is normally a member of the United Nations, whereas a state having De Facto Recognition may not be a member of the United Nations.
• State Succession Rules apply to a state having De Jure Recognition, whereas the same don't apply to a state having De Facto Recognition.
• States having De Jure Recognition have absolute rights and obligations against other states. States having De Facto Recognition don't have absolute rights and obligations against other states.

These differences illustrate that de jure recognition is the formal and legally binding acknowledgment of a state, carrying more significant implications and stability, while de facto recognition is often temporary and contingent on practical circumstances, with less international legal weight.

Withdrawal of Recognition
Recognition of a state by another state or the international community can be withdrawn; though this rarely happens. Recognition isn't always fixed and can change under certain conditions. Here are some reasons for withdrawing recognition:

• Government Change: When a government changes, the original recognition could be withdrawn. This could also happen when a new leadership takes over, and the recognizers decide against continuing recognition.
   
• State Breakup: Sometimes a state breaks up into new parts. This could prompt recognition cancellation for some or all new parts.
   
• Breaking International Law: States ignoring international law or accepted rules could face recognition withdrawal, often as a protest or as a punitive measure.
   
• Shifting Circumstances: If the circumstances that first led to recognition change a lot, recognizers could rethink their decision. This might include land disputes, changes in government actions, or changing allegiances.
   
• Pressure or diplomacy: The push from other countries or disputes in diplomacy can lead to recognition being withdrawn. Diplomatic ties could be cut, causing recognition to stop.
   
• World Politics: Geopolitical actions can affect recognition decisions. A country may stop recognizing another one if it feels that it benefits its national interests.

Revoking recognition is a tricky, politically sensitive process. It can heavily influence diplomatic, legal, and political scenarios. If a country retracts recognition, it might stop diplomatic discussions, pull back ambassadors, and publicize reasons for this choice. Moreover, global treaties� and agreements' status may be impacted.

When recognition is retracted, it doesn't always alter the legal status of the entity under global law. However, it might cause real-world changes involving global relations and diplomacy. Countries use recognition, and its withdrawal, as a method to achieve their international policy goals and adapt to the fluid global landscape.

Example:
Somaliland, a self-stated free nation in Africa's Horn, got separated from Somalia in 1991. This happened after Somalia's central government crashed after many years of conflict. Somaliland now has its own government, laws, and security forces, and stays peaceful and well-run.

Though Somaliland is not officially seen as a separate state globally, it works independently. It has its own governing bodies. Over time, countries like Ethiopia, Djibouti, etc., have quietly accepted Somaliland as a separate country. They even established diplomatic ties.

In 2020, Ethiopia, once a country that did accept Somaliland, withdrew its recognition. They announced that they would not see Somaliland as a separate state anymore. The reason behind this shift wasn't openly shared. This created a big change in diplomatic relations.

Conclusion:
When a state is recognized, it means another state acknowledges its existence as a political entity. This recognition can boost a state greatly in various ways. There are certain benefits tied to it, like the recognized state gaining the right to fight legal battles in the courts of the state that recognized it. The recognized state gets a special kind of protection, called sovereign immunity, for itself and its belongings in the courts of the state that acknowledged it.

Above all, it can claim ownership and grab possessions located in the territory of the recognizing state. The recognized state can formally engage in diplomacy and treaties with the acknowledging state (de jure recognition). The state that recognizes another can affect the previous laws and executive actions of the recognized state (retroactivity of recognition).

When a government changes due to a rebellion, the previous governing body is sometimes acknowledged as the rightful government (the de jure government).

References:

• https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/law/de-facto-and-de-jure-recognition/
• Public International Law & Human Rights, Dr. Ashok Jain, Ascent Publications
• https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/difference-between-de-facto-and-de-jure/
• https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/difference-between-de-facto-and-de-jure
• https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/difference-between-de-facto-and-de-jure-
• https://nyaydristi.in/withdrawal-of-recognition-of-states-and-its-implications/

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565