Ajay Kumar at 12:57, 22 August 2023

2023-08-22T12:57:51Z

New page

{{Redirect|In practice|the publication|In Practice}}
{{Other uses}}
{{Italic title}}
{{Short description|Practical rather than theoretical reality}}
'''''De facto''''' ({{IPAc-en|d|eɪ|_|ˈ|f|æ|k|t|oʊ|,_|d|i|-|,_|d|ə|-}} {{respell|day|_|FAK|toh|,_|dee|_-|,_|də|_-}};<ref>''Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary''. S.v. "[https://www.thefreedictionary.com/de+facto de facto] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210124122400/https://www.thefreedictionary.com/de+facto |date=2021-01-24 }}." Retrieved January 12, 2018</ref> {{Lang-la|de facto}} {{IPA-la|deː ˈfaktoː|}}, {{literal translation|in fact}}) describes practices that exist in reality, regardless of whether they are officially recognized by laws or other formal norms.<ref name="Dictionary.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.dictionary.com/browse/de-facto|title=de facto|work=Dictionary.com|access-date=25 February 2017|archive-date=24 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210124122404/https://www.dictionary.com/browse/de-facto|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>See I. 3. {{cite OED2|de}}</ref><ref>{{OEtymD|de facto}}</ref> It is commonly used to refer to what happens '''in practice''', in contrast with ''[[de jure]]'' ("by law"), which refers to things that happen according to official law, regardless of whether the practice exists in reality.

==Jurisprudence==
In [[jurisprudence]], it mainly means "practiced, but not necessarily defined by law"{{cn|date=October 2022}} or "practiced or is valid, but not officially established".{{cn|date=October 2022}} Basically, this expression is opposed to the concept of "de jure" (which means "as defined by law") when it comes to law, management or [[technology]] (such as standards) in the case of creation, development or application of "without" or "against" instructions, but in accordance with "with practice". When legal situations are discussed, "de jure" means "expressed by law", while "de facto" means action or what is practiced. Similar expressions: "essentially", "unofficial", "in fact", "actually". With regards to sentencing, the term "de facto life imprisonment" is used to describe a sentence that is not a life sentence but it ends when the defendant is at an age where they're likely to be dead.

==Technical standards==
{{Main|De facto standard}}


A de facto standard is a standard (formal or informal) that has achieved a dominant position by tradition, enforcement, or market dominance. It has not necessarily received formal approval by way of a standardization process, and may not have an official standards document.

[[Technical standard]]s are usually voluntary, such as [[ISO 9000]] requirements, but may be obligatory, enforced by government norms, such as [[Water quality|drinking water quality]] requirements. The term "de facto standard" is used for both: to contrast obligatory standards (also known as "de jure standards"); or to express a dominant standard, when there is more than one proposed standard.

In [[social sciences]], a voluntary standard that is also a de facto standard, is a typical solution to a [[coordination problem]].<ref name="Ulmann">Edna Ullmann-Margalit: ''The Emergence of Norms'', Oxford Un. Press, 1977. (or Clarendon Press 1978)</ref>

== Government and culture ==

===National languages===
Several countries, including Australia, Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States, have a de facto [[national language]] but no official, de jure national language.

Some countries have a de facto national language in addition to an official language. In [[Lebanon]] and [[Morocco]], the official language is Arabic, but an additional de facto language is also French. In New Zealand, the official languages are [[Māori language|Māori]] and [[New Zealand Sign Language]]; however, English is a third de facto language.

Russian was the de facto official language of the central government and, to a large extent, [[Republicanism|republican]] governments of the former [[Soviet Union]], but was not declared de jure state language until 1990. A short-lived law, effected April 24, 1990, installed Russian as the sole de jure official language of the Union.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bestpravo.ru/ussr/data01/tex10935.htm |title=USSR Law "On the Languages of the Peoples of USSR" |date=April 24, 1990 |language=ru |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090618042714/http://www.bestpravo.ru/ussr/data01/tex10935.htm |archive-date=2009-06-18 }}</ref>

In [[Bilingualism in Hong Kong|Hong Kong]] and [[Macau]], the [[Special administrative regions of China]], the official languages are English and Portuguese respectively, together with Chinese. However, no particular variety of "Chinese" referred to in law is specified. [[Cantonese]] ([[Hong Kong Cantonese]]) in [[traditional Chinese characters]] is the de facto standard in both territories.<ref name="langlog">{{Cite web |title=Cantonese: Still the Native Language of Hong Kong |url=http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=33511 |last=Mair |first=Victor |date=1 July 2017 |website=[[Language Log]] |access-date=14 January 2023 |archive-date=4 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170704223416/http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=33511 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Governance and sovereignty===
[[File:De-facto-territory-control-map-of-the-world-borderless-14-05-2019.svg|thumb|upright=1.4|right|''De facto'' political map of the world, May 2019]]
{{Further|List of states with limited recognition|Proto-state|De facto embassy}}

A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead.<ref>30 Am Jur 181. ''Law Dictionary'', James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, p. 345.</ref>

In politics, a de facto leader of a country or region is one who has assumed authority, regardless of whether by lawful, constitutional, or legitimate means; very frequently, the term is reserved for those whose power is thought by some faction to be held by unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise illegitimate means, often because it had deposed a previous leader or undermined the rule of a current one. ''De facto'' leaders sometimes do not hold a constitutional office and may exercise power informally.

Not all [[dictator]]s are de facto rulers. For example, [[Augusto Pinochet]] of [[Chile]] initially came to power as the chairperson of a [[military junta]], which briefly made him de facto leader of Chile, but he later amended the nation's constitution and made himself president until new elections were called, making him the formal and legal ruler of Chile. Similarly, [[Saddam Hussein]]'s formal rule of [[Ba'athist Iraq|Iraq]] is often recorded as beginning in 1979, the year he assumed the [[President of Iraq|Presidency of Iraq]]. However, his de facto rule of the nation began earlier: during his time as [[vice president]]; he exercised a great deal of power at the expense of the elderly [[Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr]], the de jure president.

In [[Argentina]], the successive military coups that overthrew constitutional governments installed de facto governments in [[José Félix Uriburu|1930–1932]], [[1943 Argentine coup d'état|1943–1946]], [[Revolución Libertadora|1955–1958]], [[Argentine Revolution|1966–1973]] and [[National Reorganization Process|1976–1983]], the last of which combined the powers of the [[President of Argentina|presidential office]] with those of the [[National Congress of Argentina|National Congress]]. The subsequent legal analysis of the validity of such actions led to the formulation of a [[De facto government doctrine|doctrine of the de facto governments]], a [[case law]] ([[precedent]]ial) formulation which essentially said that the actions and decrees of past de facto governments, although not rooted in legal legitimacy when taken, remained binding until and unless such time as they were revoked or repealed de jure by a subsequent legitimate government.

That doctrine was nullified by the [[1994 amendment of the Argentine Constitution|constitutional reform of 1994]]. Article 36 states:

{{quote|
*(1) This Constitution shall rule even when its observance is interrupted by acts of force against the institutional order and the democratic system. These acts shall be irreparably [[null and void|null]].
*(2) Their authors shall be punished with the penalty foreseen in Section 29, disqualified in perpetuity from holding public offices and excluded from the benefits of [[pardon]] and [[Commutation of sentence|commutation]] of sentences.
*(3) Those who, as a consequence of these acts, were to assume the powers foreseen for the authorities of this Constitution or for those of the provinces, shall be punished with the same penalties and shall be civil and criminally liable for their acts. The respective actions shall not be subject to prescription.
*(4) All citizens shall have the right to oppose resistance to those committing the acts of force stated in this section.
*(5) He who, procuring personal enrichment, incurs in serious fraudulent offense against the Nation shall also attempt subversion against the democratic system, and shall be disqualified to hold public office for the term specified by law.
*(6) Congress shall enact a law on public [[ethics]] which shall rule the exercise of public office.
}}

Two examples of de facto leaders are [[Deng Xiaoping]] of the People's Republic of China and general [[Manuel Noriega]] of [[Panama]]. Both of these men exercised nearly all control over their respective nations for many years despite not having either legal constitutional office or the legal authority to exercise power. These individuals are today commonly recorded as the "leaders" of their respective nations; recording their legal, correct title would not give an accurate assessment of their power. Terms like ''[[strongman (politics)|strongman]]'' or ''dictator'' are often used to refer to de facto rulers of this sort. In the [[Soviet Union]], after [[Vladimir Lenin]] was incapacitated from a stroke in 1923, [[Joseph Stalin]]—who, as [[General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] had the power to appoint anyone he chose to top party positions—eventually emerged as leader of the Party and the legitimate government. Until the [[1936 Soviet Constitution]] officially declared the Party "the vanguard of the working people", thus legitimising Stalin's leadership, Stalin ruled the USSR as the de facto dictator.

Another example of a de facto ruler is someone who is not the actual ruler but exerts great or total influence over the true ruler, which is quite common in monarchies. Some examples of these de facto rulers are [[Empress Dowager Cixi]] of China (for son [[Tongzhi Emperor]] and nephew [[Guangxu Emperor]]), Prince [[Alexander Danilovich Menshikov|Alexander Menshikov]] (for his former lover Empress [[Catherine I of Russia]]), [[Cardinal Richelieu]] of France (for [[Louis XIII of France|Louis XIII]]), Queen [[Elisabeth Farnese|Elisabeth of Parma]] (for her husband, King [[Philip V of Spain|Philip V]]) and Queen [[Maria Carolina of Austria|Maria Carolina of Naples and Sicily]] (for her husband King [[Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies]]).

==== Borders ====
The de facto boundaries of a country are defined by the area that its government is actually able to enforce its laws in, and to defend against encroachments by other countries that may also claim the same territory de jure. The [[Durand Line]] is an example of a de facto boundary. As well as cases of [[border dispute]]s, de facto boundaries may also arise in relatively unpopulated areas in which the border was never formally established or in which the agreed border was never surveyed and its exact position is unclear. The same concepts may also apply to a boundary between provinces or other subdivisions of a [[federation|federal state]].

==== Segregation ====
In South Africa, although de jure [[apartheid]] formally began in 1948, de facto racist policies and practices discriminating against black South Africans, People of Colour, and Indians dated back decades before.<ref name="Introduction to Roman-Dutch Law">{{cite web |url=https://archive.org/details/introductiontoro00leeruoft |title=Introduction to Roman-Dutch Law |access-date=27 March 2011 |author=R.W. Lee |publisher=Oxford, Clarendon Press }}</ref><ref name="Afrikaner political thought: analysis and documents">{{cite book |title=Afrikaner political thought: analysis and documents |author=A. Du Toit, H. B. Giliomee |isbn=978-0-520-04319-0 |publisher=University of California Press |year=1983 }}</ref><ref>Gish, Steven (2000). ''Alfred B. Xuma: African, American, South African.'' New York University Press. p. 8.</ref><ref>Hoiberg, Dale; Ramchandani, Indu (2000). ''Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1–5.'' Popular Prakashan. p. 142.</ref><ref>Allen, John (2005). ''Apartheid South Africa: An Insider's Overview of the Origin And Effects of Separate Development.'' iUniverse. p. xi.</ref><ref>Nojeim, Michael J. (2004). ''Gandhi and King: the power of nonviolent resistance.'' Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 127.</ref><ref name="leach">Leach, Graham (1986). ''South Africa: no easy path to peace.'' Routledge. p. 68.</ref><ref>Tankard, Keith (9 May 2004). [http://www.knowledge4africa.com/worldhistory/proto-apartheid09.htm Chapter 9 The Natives (Urban Areas) Act] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081120022848/http://www.knowledge4africa.com/worldhistory/proto-apartheid09.htm |date=20 November 2008 }} . Rhodes University. knowledge4africa.com.</ref><ref>Baroness Young – Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (4 July 1986). [http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1986/jul/04/south-africa#S5LV0477P0_19860704_HOL_99 vol 477 cc1159-250] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160326134600/http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1986/jul/04/south-africa#S5LV0477P0_19860704_HOL_99 |date=2016-03-26 }}. Hansard.</ref><ref>[http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/chronology/thisday/representation-of-natives-act.htm The Representation of Natives Act]. sahistory.org {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061013060416/http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/chronology/thisday/representation-of-natives-act.htm |date=13 October 2006 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/indian-passive-resistance-south-africa-1946-1948|title = Indian passive resistance in South Africa, 1946–1948|date = n.d.|access-date = 23 February 2015|website = sahistory.org.za|publisher = SA History|last = Reddy|first = E.S|archive-date = 23 February 2015|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150223214527/http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/indian-passive-resistance-south-africa-1946-1948|url-status = live}}</ref><ref>Ambrosio, Thomas (2002). ''Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy.'' Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 56–57.</ref>

''De facto'' racial discrimination and [[Racial segregation|segregation]] in the United States (outside of the South) until the 1950s and 1960s was simply discrimination that was {{em|not}} segregation by law (de jure). "[[Jim Crow laws]]", which were enacted in the 1870s, brought legal racial segregation against [[black Americans]] residing in the [[Southern United States|American South]]. These laws were legally ended in 1964 by the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].<ref name="cra64">{{Cite web |url=http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21 |title=Civil Rights Act of 1964 |access-date=2010-11-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101021141154/http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21 |archive-date=2010-10-21 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="scjc7">{{cite book |last=Woodward |first=C. Vann |last2=McFeely |first2=William S. |title=The Strange Career of Jim Crow |year=2001 |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=7 |isbn=0-19-514689-1 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=King |first=Desmond |title=Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the US Federal Government |url=https://archive.org/details/separateunequalb0000king |url-access=registration |year=1995 |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=[https://archive.org/details/separateunequalb0000king/page/n89 3] |isbn=0-19-828016-5 }}</ref>

== ''De facto'' state of war ==
Most commonly used to describe large scale conflicts of the 20th century, the phrase '''de facto state of war''' refers to a situation where two nations are actively engaging, or are engaged, in aggressive military actions against the other without a formal [[declaration of war]].

==Marriage and domestic partnerships==
{{Globalize section |date=October 2022}}

==={{anchor|Relationships}} Relationships===
A [[domestic partner]] outside [[marriage]] is referred to as a de facto husband or wife by some authorities.<ref>[[Lenore E. Walker|Walker Lenore E.]] "Battered Woman Syndrome. Empirical Findings." ''Violence and Exploitation Against Women and Girls'', November 2006, p. 142.</ref>

====In Australia and New Zealand====
In Australia and New Zealand, the phrase "de facto" by itself has become a colloquial term for one's domestic partner.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Gulliver|first1=Katrina|title=De facto is a defective description – just say living in sin|url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/30/1043804461070.html|access-date=29 August 2016|work=Sydney Morning Herald|date=31 January 2003|quote=I am curious about the use of the term "de facto". It is an adjective meaning "in fact" – as opposed to "in law". It is used by Australian journalists when describing (other people's) domestic partners. I have never heard anyone say "my de facto". It is a brief way of saying "living with someone but not actually married". Despite being an adjective, it never seems to be used with a noun, but on its own...|archive-date=9 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161009103612/http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/30/1043804461070.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In [[Australian law]], it is the legally recognized, committed relationship of a couple living together (opposite-sex or same-sex).<ref>{{cite news|title=What are your rights when a de facto relationship ends?|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-22/de-facto-myths-and-tips-after-a-split/8641622|access-date=16 September 2017|work=ABC News|date=22 June 2017|language=en-AU|archive-date=8 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170908233244/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-22/de-facto-myths-and-tips-after-a-split/8641622|url-status=live}}</ref> ''De facto'' unions are defined in the federal [[Family Law Act 1975]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s4aa.html|title=Family Law Act 1975 – Sect. 4AA|work=austlii.edu.au|access-date=2017-09-16|archive-date=2016-04-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160412215824/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s4aa.html|url-status=live}}</ref> ''De facto'' relationships provide couples who are living together on a genuine domestic basis with many of the same rights and benefits as married couples. Two people can become a de facto couple by entering into a registered relationship (i.e.: civil union or domestic partnership) or by being assessed as such by the [[Family Court of Australia|Family Court]] or [[Federal Circuit Court of Australia|Federal Circuit Court]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships/|title=De facto Relationships|work=Family Court of Australia|access-date=2017-09-16|archive-date=2018-09-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180922134827/http://familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships/|url-status=live}}</ref> Couples who are living together are generally recognised as a de facto union and thus able to claim many of the rights and benefits of a married couple, even if they have not registered or officially documented their relationship,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lawsociety.com.au/community/publicationsandfaqs/DefactoRelationships/index.htm|title=De facto Relationships|work=The Law Society of New South Wales|access-date=2017-09-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170210044537/https://www.lawsociety.com.au/community/publicationsandfaqs/DefactoRelationships/index.htm|archive-date=2017-02-10|url-status=dead}}</ref> although this may vary by state. It has been noted that it is harder to prove de facto relationship status, particularly in the case of the death of one of the partners.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Elphick|first1=Liam|title=Do same-sex couples really have the same rights as married couples?|url=http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/agenda/article/2017/09/14/do-same-sex-couples-really-have-same-rights-married-couples|access-date=15 September 2017|work=SBS News|language=en|archive-date=15 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170915203833/http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/agenda/article/2017/09/14/do-same-sex-couples-really-have-same-rights-married-couples|url-status=live}}</ref>

In April 2014, an Australian federal court judge ruled that a heterosexual couple who had a child and lived together for 13 years were not in a de facto relationship and thus the court had no jurisdiction to divide up their property under family law following a request for separation. In his ruling, the judge stated "de facto relationship(s) may be described as 'marriage like' but it is not a marriage and has significant differences socially, financially and emotionally."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/de-facto-couples-have-differences-to-married-counterparts-judge-says/story-e6frg97x-1226893110835|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140504210414/http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/de-facto-couples-have-differences-to-married-counterparts-judge-says/story-e6frg97x-1226893110835|url-status=dead|archive-date=4 May 2014|title=De facto couples have differences to married counterparts, judge says|work=[[The Australian]]|date=23 April 2014}}</ref>

The above sense of de facto is related to the relationship between common law traditions and formal (statutory, regulatory, civil) law, and [[common-law marriage]]s. Common law norms for settling disputes in practical situations, often worked out over many generations to establishing [[precedent]], are a core element informing decision making in [[legal system]]s around the world. Because its early forms originated in [[England in the Middle Ages]], this is particularly true in Anglo-American legal traditions and in former colonies of the [[British Empire]], while also playing a role in some countries that have mixed systems with significant admixtures of civil law.

=====Relationships not recognised outside Australia=====
{{Further |Family Court of Australia#Jurisdiction}}
Due to [[Federalism in Australia|Australian federalism]], de facto partnerships can only be legally recognised whilst the couple lives within a state in Australia. This is because the power to legislate on de facto matters relies on referrals by States to the Commonwealth in accordance with [[Section 51(xxxvii) of the Australian Constitution]], where it states the new federal law can only be applied back within a state.<ref>{{cite web|date=Feb 2003|url=http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/aboutct/judges_papers/speeches_frenchj6.rtf|title=The Referral of State Powers Cooperative Federalism lives?|work=Western Australia Law Review|first=Justice|last=French|access-date=2012-02-17|archive-date=2012-02-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120227132215/http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/aboutct/judges_papers/speeches_frenchj6.rtf|url-status=live}}.</ref><ref>''Thomas'' (2007) 233 CLR 307, [208] (Kirby J).</ref> There must be a nexus between the de facto relationship itself and the Australian state.<ref>See sections [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s90rd.html 90RG] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120416210750/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s90rd.html |date=2012-04-16 }}, [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s90sd.html 90SD] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120416132956/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s90sd.html |date=2012-04-16 }} and [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s90sk.html 90SK] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120416081424/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s90sk.html |date=2012-04-16 }}, section [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s90ra.html 90RA] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120416230922/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s90ra.html |date=2012-04-16 }}, of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/ Family Law Act] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120309235045/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au//legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/ |date=2012-03-09 }}.</ref>

If an Australian de facto couple moves out of a state, they do not take the state with them and the new federal law is tied to the territorial limits of a state. The legal status and rights and obligations of the de facto or unmarried couple would then be recognised by the laws of the country where they are ordinarily resident.

This is unlike marriage and "matrimonial causes" which are recognised by sections 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the [[Constitution of Australia]]<ref>[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html Section 51] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090411044012/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html |date=2009-04-11 }}, [[Australian Constitution]]</ref> and internationally by [[marriage law]] and conventions, [[International matrimonial law|Hague Convention on Marriages]] (1978).<ref name="Hague Convention">{{Cite web |url=http://www.legallanguage.com/resources/treaties/hague/1978-march-14th-convention-2 |title=Hague Convention on Marriages 1978 |access-date=2012-02-17 |archive-date=2012-02-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120220134603/http://www.legallanguage.com/resources/treaties/hague/1978-march-14th-convention-2 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Non-marital relationship contract===
A de facto relationship is comparable to non-marital relationship contracts (sometimes called "palimony agreements") and certain limited forms of domestic partnership, which are found in many jurisdictions throughout the world.

A de facto Relationship is not comparable to [[common-law marriage]], which is a fully legal marriage that has merely been contracted in an irregular way (including by habit and repute). Only nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia still permit common-law marriage; but common law marriages are otherwise valid and recognised by and in all jurisdictions whose rules of comity mandate the recognition of any marriage that was legally formed in the jurisdiction where it was contracted.

===Family law – custody===
''De facto'' joint custody is comparable to the joint legal decision-making authority a married couple has over their child(ren) in many jurisdictions (Canada as an example). Upon separation, each parent maintains de facto joint custody, until such time a court order awards custody, either sole or joint.

==Business ==

=== Monopoly ===
A de facto [[monopoly]] is a system where many suppliers of a product are allowed but the market is so completely dominated by one that the other players are unable to compete or even survive. The related terms [[oligopoly]] and [[monopsony]] are similar in meaning and this is the type of situation that [[United States antitrust law|antitrust]] laws are intended to eliminate.

=== Finance ===
In finance, the [[World Bank]] has a pertinent definition:

<blockquote>A "de facto government" comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country's constitution, such as a coup d'état, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution.<ref>{{Cite web | title = OP 7.30 – Dealings with De Facto Governments | work = Operational Manual | publisher = The World Bank | date = July 2001 | url = http://go.worldbank.org/UHU8EMUDZ0 | access-date = 2010-11-28 | archive-date = 2017-10-11 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20171011195056/http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTOPMANUAL/0,,contentMDK:20064666~menuPK:64701637~pagePK:64709096~piPK:64709108~theSitePK:502184,00.html | url-status = dead }}</ref></blockquote>

=== Intellectual property ===
In engineering, {{dfn|de facto technology}} is a system in which the intellectual property and know-how is privately held. Usually only the owner of the technology manufactures the related equipment. Meanwhile, a {{dfn|standard technology}} consists of systems that have been publicly released to a certain degree so that anybody can manufacture equipment supporting the technology. For instance, in cell phone communications, CDMA1X is a de facto technology, while GSM is a standard technology.

===Sports===
Examples of a de facto General Manager in sports include [[Syd Thrift]] who acted as the GM of the [[Baltimore Orioles]] between 1999 and 2002. [[Bill Belichick]], the head coach of the [[New England Patriots]] in the [[NFL]] does not hold the official title of GM, but serves as de facto general manager as he has control over [[NFL Draft|drafting]] and other personnel decisions.

==See also==
* [[Fact]]
* [[Unenforced law]]

== Notes ==
{{Notelist}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:De Facto}}
[[Category:Latin legal terminology]]
[[Category:Latin words and phrases]]

De facto - Revision history

Ajay Kumar at 12:57, 22 August 2023