24 JUNE 1938, Page 22

" DE FACTO " AND " DE JLJRE "

[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR,—With due respect, I should like to query the explanation given in " Current Questions " of what is meant by de jure recognition. De jure means, does it not, " by right, according to law " ? A de jure ruler, for instance, is " one who has a legal right to rule whether actually exercising it or not." Are the words de jure, then, devoid of meaning in this special connexion ?

If by de jure recognition is meant only the acknowledgement that a Government is definitely settled, why do we amongst others refuse such recognition to Manchukuo ? . And why does the Government of the United States of America withhold it in the case of territory acquired by conquest ?—I remain, yours faithfully, J. C. EWEN. 58A Thicket Road, Anerley, London, S.E.

[There is no decisive and authoritative definition of the terms de jure and de facto as applied to the acquisition of sovereignty. But the definition given in The Spectator of June loth is borne out by the late Lord Birkenhead's " International Law," p. 94 : " Conquest is by some writers used synonymously with effective military occupation ; in that case the possession of the occupant is only de facto and provisional. If conquest is identified with subjugation and annexation, then the position of the annexing State becomes de jure and definitive." De jure recognition indicates that the acquisition of the conquered territory is juridically valid, not that it is just.—ED. The Spectator.]