Under de facto recognition, in the opinion of
the recognizing state, the new state or government:
(i) lacks stability and permanency, or (ii) does
not possess all the essentials required under
international law for its effective participation in
international affairs, but, in fact, it fulfils these
requirements. It may grant recognition to the
latter provisionally with all due reservations for the
future.

In case of de jure recognition, in the opinion of
the recognizing state, the new state or government
fulfils all the attributes essential for its effective
participation in the international community, and
it may grant the recognition to the latter formally.

However both, de facto and de jure recognition,
are related to the fact that the recognized authority
should have effective control over a given area
and it should have the semblance of permanence
and stability.

Distinction between the two can
be described as a de jure government is one “which
ought to possess the powers of sovereignty, though
at the time it may be deprived of them. A de facto
government is one which is really in possession of
them although the possession may be wrongful
or precarious”