De Facto and de Jure Recognition:
Recognition is of two types. It may be either de facto or de jure. Recognition de facto implies that there is some doubt as to the long-term viability of the government in question. Recognition de jure usually follows where the recognising state accepts that the effective control displayed by the government is permanent and firmly rooted and that there are no legal reasons detracting from this, such as constitutional subservience to a foreign power. De facto recognition involves a hesitant assessment of the situation, an attitude of wait and see, to be succeeded by de jure recognition when the doubts are sufficiently overcome to extend formal acceptance. For instance, the United Kingdom recognised the Soviet government de facto in 1921 and de jure in 1924. A slightly different approach is adopted in cases of civil war where the distinction between de jure and de facto recognition is sometimes used to illustrate the variance between legal and factual sovereignty. For example, during the 1936–9 Spanish Civil War, the United Kingdom, while recognising the Republican government as the de jure government, extended de facto recognition to the forces under General Franco as they gradually took over the country.
Similarly, the government of the Italian conquering forces in Ethiopia was recognised de facto by the UK in 1936, and de jure two years later.
Different consequences of De facto and De jure Recognition:
De facto and de jure recognition is an interpretation of a political reality by a state in accordance with its own interests while reserving judgment on the permanence of the change in government or its desirability or legality. There are in reality few meaningful distinctions between a de facto and a de jure recognition, although only a government recognised de jure may enter a claim to property located in the recognising state. Additionally, it is generally accepted that de facto recognition does not of itself include the exchange of diplomatic relations.