De facto

In law and government, de facto (/deɪ ˈfæktoʊ/ or /di ˈfæktoʊ/;[1] Latin: de facto, "in fact"; Latin pronunciation: [deː ˈfaktoː]) describes practices that exist in reality, even if not officially recognized by laws.[2][3][4] It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice, in contrast with de jure ("in law"), which refers to things that happen according to law. Unofficial customs that are widely accepted are sometimes called de facto standards.

Examples

Standards

A [[de facto standard|‹See Tfd› 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 standardisation process, and may not have an official standards document.

[[Technical standard|‹See Tfd› Technical standard]]s are usually voluntary, like ISO 9000 requirements, but may be obligatory, enforced by government norms, like 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.[5]

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, Maori and New Zealand Sign Language are de jure official languages, while English is a de facto official language. In Singapore, English is the de jure language, but Chinese, Malay and Tamil are common de facto languages.

Russian was the de facto official language of the central government and, to a large extent, 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.[6]

Politics

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.[7]

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 dictators 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 for life, making him the formal and legal ruler of Chile. Similarly, Saddam Hussein's formal rule of Iraq is often recorded as beginning in 1979, the year he assumed the 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 1930–1932, 1943–1946, 1955–1958, 1966–1973 and 1976–1983, the last of which combined the powers of the presidential office with those of the National Congress. The subsequent legal analysis of the validity of such actions led to the formulation of a doctrine of the de facto governments, a case law (precedential) 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 constitutional reform of 1994. Article 36 states:

  • (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.
  • (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 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.

In 1526, after seizing power Imam Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi made his brother, Umar Din, the de jure Sultan of the Adal Sultanate. Ahmad, however, was in all practice the de facto Sultan.[8] Some other notable true de facto leaders have been 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 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 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 and nephew Guangxu Emperors), Prince Alexander Menshikov (for his former lover Empress Catherine I of Russia), Cardinal Richelieu of France (for Louis XIII) and Queen Marie Caroline of Naples and Sicily (for her husband King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies).

The term "de facto head of state" is sometimes used to describe the office of a governor general in the Commonwealth realms, since a holder of that office has the same responsibilities in their country as the de jure head of state (the sovereign) does within the United Kingdom.

In the Westminster system of government, executive authority is often split between a de jure executive authority of a head of state and a de facto executive authority of a prime minister and cabinet who implement executive powers in the name of the de jure executive authority. In the United Kingdom, the Sovereign is the de jure executive authority, even though executive decisions are made by the indirectly elected Prime Minister and her Cabinet on the Sovereign's behalf, hence the term Her Majesty's Government.

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 disputes, 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 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, Coloureds, and Indians dated back decades before.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

De facto racial discrimination and segregation in the United States until the 1950s and 1960s was simply discrimination that was 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 American South. These laws were legally ended in 1964 by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[21][22][23]

Other uses

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 others might as well not exist. The related terms oligopoly and monopsony are similar in meaning and this is the type of situation that antitrust laws are intended to eliminate.

Relationships

A domestic partner outside marriage is referred to as a de facto husband or wife by some authorities.[24] In Australia and New Zealand, the phrase "de facto" by itself has become a colloquial term for one's domestic partner.[25] In Australian law, it is the legally recognized, committed relationship of a couple living together (opposite-sex or same-sex).[26] De facto unions are defined in the federal Family Law Act 1975.[27] 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 or Federal Circuit Court.[28] 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,[29] 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.[30]

In April 2014, a 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."[31]

The above sense of de facto is related to the relationship between common law traditions and formal (statutory, regulatory, civil) law, and common-law marriages. 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 systems 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

Due to 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.[32][33] There must be a state nexus between the de facto relationship itself and the Australian state.[34]

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. See the section on Family Court of Australia for further explanation on jurisdiction on de facto relationships.

This is unlike marriage and "matrimonial causes" which are recognised by sections 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution of Australia[35] and internationally by marriage law and conventions, Hague Convention on Marriages (1978).[36]

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.[37]

Other uses of the term

In finance, the World Bank has a pertinent definition:

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.[38]

A de facto state of war is a situation where two nations are actively engaging, or are engaged, in aggressive military actions against the other without a formal declaration of war.

In engineering, ‹See Tfd› 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 ‹See Tfd› 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.

See also

References

  1. ^ Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary. S.v. "de facto." Retrieved January 12, 2018 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/de+facto
  2. ^ "de facto". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 25 February 2017.
  3. ^ See I. 3. "de". Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 1989.
  4. ^ Harper, Douglas. "de facto". Online Etymology Dictionary.
  5. ^ Edna Ullmann-Margalit: The Emergence of Norms, Oxford Un. Press, 1977. (or Clarendon Press 1978)
  6. ^ "USSR Law "On the Languages of the Peoples of USSR"" (in Russian). April 24, 1990. Archived from the original on 2009-06-18.
  7. ^ 30 Am Jur 181. Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, p. 345.
  8. ^ "Aḥmad Grāñ". Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved 2014-05-04.
  9. ^ R.W Lee. "Introduction to Roman-Dutch Law". Oxford, Clarendon Press. Retrieved 27 March 2011.
  10. ^ A. Du Toit, H.B. Giliomee (1983). Afrikaner political thought: analysis and documents. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-04319-0.
  11. ^ Gish, Steven (2000). Alfred B. Xuma: African, American, South African. New York University Press. p. 8.
  12. ^ Hoiberg, Dale; Ramchandani, Indu (2000). Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1–5. Popular Prakashan. p. 142.
  13. ^ Allen, John (2005). Apartheid South Africa: An Insider's Overview of the Origin And Effects of Separate Development. iUniverse. p. xi.
  14. ^ Nojeim, Michael J. (2004). Gandhi and King: the power of nonviolent resistance. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 127.
  15. ^ Leach, Graham (1986). South Africa: no easy path to peace. Routledge. p. 68.
  16. ^ Tankard, Keith (9 May 2004). Chapter 9 The Natives (Urban Areas) Act Archived 20 November 2008 at the Wayback Machine . Rhodes University. knowledge4africa.com.
  17. ^ Baroness Young – Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (4 July 1986). South Africa House of Lords Debate vol 477 cc1159-250. Hansard.
  18. ^ The Representation of Natives Act. sahistory.org Archived 13 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine
  19. ^ Reddy, E.S (n.d.). "Indian passive resistance in South Africa, 1946–1948". sahistory.org.za. SA History. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
  20. ^ Ambrosio, Thomas (2002). Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 56–57.
  21. ^ Civil Rights Act of 1964
  22. ^ Woodward, C. Vann; McFeely, William S. (2001). The Strange Career of Jim Crow. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-19-514689-1.
  23. ^ King, Desmond (1995). Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the US Federal Government. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-19-828016-5.
  24. ^ Walker Lenore E. "Battered Woman Syndrome. Empirical Findings." Violence and Exploitation Against Women and Girls, November 2006, p. 142.
  25. ^ Gulliver, Katrina (31 January 2003). "De facto is a defective description – just say living in sin". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 29 August 2016. 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...
  26. ^ "What are your rights when a de facto relationship ends?". ABC News. 22 June 2017. Retrieved 16 September 2017.
  27. ^ "Family Law Act 1975 – Sect. 4AA". austlii.edu.au.
  28. ^ "De facto Relationships". Family Court of Australia.
  29. ^ "De facto Relationships". The Law Society of New South Wales. Archived from the original on 2017-02-10. Retrieved 2017-09-16.
  30. ^ Elphick, Liam. "Do same-sex couples really have the same rights as married couples?". SBS News. Retrieved 15 September 2017.
  31. ^ "De facto couples have differences to married counterparts, judge says". The Australian. 23 April 2014.
  32. ^ French, Justice (Feb 2003). "The Referral of State Powers Cooperative Federalism lives?". Western Australia Law Review..
  33. ^ Thomas (2007) 233 CLR 307, [208] (Kirby J).
  34. ^ See sections 90RG, 90SD and 90SK, section 90RA, of the Family Law Act.
  35. ^ Section 51, Australian Constitution
  36. ^ Hague Convention on Marriages 1978
  37. ^ http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/familyla.pdf What you should know about Family Law in Ontario
  38. ^ "OP 7.30 – Dealings with De Facto Governments". Operational Manual. The World Bank. July 2001. Retrieved 2010-11-28.
Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan is administratively divided into the following subdivisions:

59 districts (rayonlar; sing.– rayon),

11 cities (şəhərlər; sing.– şəhər),

1 autonomous republic (muxtar respublika), which itself contains:

7 districts

1 cityThe rayons are further divided into municipalities (Bələdiyyəsi).

Additionally, Azerbaijan is subdivided into 9 (economic) regions (İqtisadi Rayonar; sing.– İqtisadi Rayonu).

This is not an administrative division. Each region contains a number of districts. The Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic forms a separate, the 10th economic region.

Chancellor of the Tang dynasty

The chancellor (Chinese: 宰相; pinyin: zǎixiàng) was a semi-formally designated office position for a number of high-level officials at one time during the Tang dynasty. This list includes chancellors of the reign of Wu Zetian, which she referred to as the "Zhou dynasty" (周), rather than "Tang" (唐).

Common-law marriage

Common-law marriage, also known as sui iuris marriage, informal marriage, marriage by habit and repute, or marriage in fact, is a legal framework in a limited number of jurisdictions where a couple is legally considered married, without that couple having formally registered their relation as a civil or religious marriage. The original concept of a "common-law marriage" is a marriage that is considered valid by both partners, but has not been formally recorded with a state or religious registry, or celebrated in a formal religious service. In effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being married, and organizing their relation as if they were married, acts as the evidence that they are married.

The term common-law marriage has wide informal use, often to denote relations that are not legally recognized as common-law marriages. The term common-law marriage is often used colloquially or by the media to refer to cohabiting couples, regardless of any legal rights that these couples may or may not have, which can create public confusion both in regard to the term and in regard to the legal rights of unmarried partners.

De Facto (band)

De Facto was a dub reggae band which included Cedric Bixler-Zavala, Omar Rodríguez-López, Isaiah "Ikey" Owens and Jeremy Michael Ward.

De facto standard

A de facto standard is a custom or convention that has achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market forces (for example, by early entrance to the market). De facto is a Latin phrase that means in fact (literally by or from fact) in the sense of "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established", as opposed to de jure.

The term de facto standard is used in contrast with obligatory standards (also known as "de jure standards"); or to express the dominant voluntary standard, when there is more than one standard available for the same use.

In social sciences, a voluntary standard that is also a de facto standard is a typical solution to a coordination problem. The choice of a de facto standard tends to be stable in situations in which all parties can realize mutual gains, but only by making mutually consistent decisions. In contrast, an enforced "de jure standard" is a solution to the prisoner's problem.

De jure

In law and government, de jure (; Latin: de iure, lit. 'in law' Latin pronunciation: [deː juːre]) describes practices that are legally recognised, regardless of whether the practice exists in reality. In contrast, de facto ("in fact" or "in practice") describes situations that exist in reality, even if not legally recognised. The terms are often used to contrast different scenarios: for a colloquial example, "I know that, de jure, this is supposed to be a parking lot, but now that the flood has left four feet of water here, it's a de facto swimming pool". To further explain, even if the signs around the flooded parking lot say "Parking Lot" (the signs effectively being the "law" determining what it is) it is "in fact" a swimming pool (with the water, the current practical circumstances, determining what it is).

Diplomatic recognition

Diplomatic recognition in international law is a unilateral political act with domestic and international legal consequences whereby a state acknowledges an act or status of another state or government in control of a state (may be also a recognized state). Recognition can be reaccorded either de facto or de jure. Recognition can be a declaration to that effect by the recognizing government, or an act of recognition such as entering into a treaty with the other state. A vote by a country in the United Nations in favour of the membership of another country is an implicit recognition of that country by the country so voting, as only states may be members of the UN.

The non-recognition of particular acts of a state does not normally affect the recognition of the state itself. For example, the international rejection of the occupation of particular territory by a recognised state does not imply non-recognition of the state itself, nor a rejection of a change of government by illegal means.

Frozen conflict

In international relations, a frozen conflict is a situation in which active armed conflict has been brought to an end, but no peace treaty or other political framework resolves the conflict to the satisfaction of the combatants. Therefore, legally the conflict can start again at any moment, creating an environment of insecurity and instability.

The term has been commonly used for post-Soviet conflicts, but it has also often been applied to other perennial territorial disputes. The de facto situation that emerges may match the de jure position asserted by one party to the conflict; for example, Russia claims and effectively controls Crimea following the 2014 Crimean crisis despite Ukraine's continuing claim to the region. Alternatively, the de facto situation may not match either side's official claim. The division of Korea is an example of the latter situation: both the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea officially assert claims to the entire peninsula; however, there exists a well-defined border between the two countries' areas of control.

Frozen conflicts sometimes result in partially recognized states. For example, the Republic of South Ossetia, a product of the frozen Georgian–Ossetian conflict, is recognized by eight other states, including five UN members; the other three of these entities are partially recognized states themselves.

Government of the Republic of Abkhazia

The Government of the Republic of Abkhazia () governs the partially recognised Republic of Abkhazia.

Jeremy Ward (sound technician)

Jeremy Michael Ward (May 5, 1976 – May 25, 2003) was the sound technician and vocal operator for The Mars Volta and for the dub outfit De Facto. He created many of the soundscapes heard on The Mars Volta's album De-Loused in the Comatorium. Ward, aside from his role in The Mars Volta and De Facto, played guitar, and was a visual artist working mostly in pen and ink.

List of heads of state of Panama

This article lists the heads of state of Panama since the short-lived first independence from the Republic of New Granada in 1840 and the final separation from Colombia in 1903.

List of national capitals

This is a list of national capitals, including capitals of territories and dependencies, non-sovereign states including associated states and entities whose sovereignty is disputed. Sovereign states and observer states within the United Nations are shown in bolded text.

List of states with limited recognition

A number of polities have declared independence and sought diplomatic recognition from the international community as de jure sovereign states, but have not been universally recognised as such. These entities often have de facto control of their territory. A number of such entities have existed in the past.

There are two traditional doctrines that provide indicia of how a de jure sovereign state comes into being. The declarative theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria:

a defined territory

a permanent population

a government, and

a capacity to enter into relations with other states.According to the declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. By contrast, the constitutive theory defines a state as a person of international law only if it is recognised as such by other states that are already a member of the international community.Proto-states often reference either or both doctrines in order to legitimise their claims to statehood. There are, for example, entities which meet the declarative criteria (with de facto partial or complete control over their claimed territory, a government and a permanent population), but whose statehood is not recognised by any other states. Non-recognition is often a result of conflicts with other countries that claim those entities as integral parts of their territory. In other cases, two or more partially recognised states may claim the same territorial area, with each of them de facto in control of a portion of it (as have been the cases of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China (PRC), and North and South Korea). Entities that are recognised by only a minority of the world's states usually reference the declarative doctrine to legitimise their claims.

In many situations, international non-recognition is influenced by the presence of a foreign military force in the territory of the contested entity, making the description of the country's de facto status problematic. The international community can judge this military presence too intrusive, reducing the entity to a puppet state where effective sovereignty is retained by the foreign power. Historical cases in this sense can be seen in Japanese-led Manchukuo or the German-created Slovak Republic and Independent State of Croatia before and during World War II. In the 1996 case Loizidou v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights judged Turkey for having exercised authority in the territory of Northern Cyprus.

There are also entities which do not have control over any territory or do not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood but have been recognised to exist de jure as sovereign entities by at least one other state. Historically this has happened in the case of the Holy See (1870–1929), Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (during Soviet annexation), and more recently the State of Palestine at the time of its declaration of independence in 1988. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is currently in this position. See list of governments in exile for unrecognised governments without control over the territory claimed.

Prime Minister of South Ossetia

The Prime Minister of the Republic of South Ossetia is the de facto head of government of the partially recognized Republic of South Ossetia that is de jure part of Georgia. This is a list of the de facto prime ministers of the Republic of South Ossetia.

Racial segregation

Racial segregation is the separation of people into racial or other ethnic groups in daily life. It may apply to activities such as eating in a restaurant, drinking from a water fountain, using a public toilet, attending school, going to the movies, riding on a bus, or in the rental or purchase of a home or of hotel rooms. Segregation is defined by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance as "the act by which a (natural or legal) person separates other persons on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds without an objective and reasonable justification, in conformity with the proposed definition of discrimination. As a result, the voluntary act of separating oneself from other people on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds does not constitute segregation". According to the UN Forum on Minority Issues, "The creation and development of classes and schools providing education in minority languages should not be considered impermissible segregation, if the assignment to such classes and schools is of a voluntary nature".Racial segregation is generally outlawed, but may exist de facto through social norms, even when there is no strong individual preference for it, as suggested by Thomas Schelling's models of segregation and subsequent work. Segregation may be maintained by means ranging from discrimination in hiring and in the rental and sale of housing to certain races to vigilante violence (such as lynchings). Generally, a situation that arises when members of different races mutually prefer to associate and do business with members of their own race would usually be described as separation or de facto separation of the races rather than segregation. In the United States, segregation was mandated by law in some states and came with anti-miscegenation laws (prohibitions against interracial marriage). Segregation, however, often allowed close contact in hierarchical situations, such as allowing a person of one race to work as a servant for a member of another race. Segregation can involve spatial separation of the races, and mandatory use of different institutions, such as schools and hospitals by people of different races.

Same-sex marriage in Australia

Same-sex marriage in Australia has been legal since 9 December 2017. Legislation to allow same-sex marriage, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017, passed the Australian Parliament on 7 December 2017 and received royal assent from the Governor-General the following day. The law came into effect on 9 December, immediately recognising overseas same-sex marriages. The first same-sex wedding under Australian law was held on 15 December 2017. The passage of the law followed a voluntary postal survey of all Australians, in which 61.6% of respondents supported same-sex marriage.

Other types of recognition for same-sex couples are also available. Under federal law, same-sex couples can also be recognised as de facto relationships, which provide most of the same rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples, although those rights may be difficult to assert and are not always recognised in practice. Although there is no national civil union or relationships register scheme in Australia, most states and territories have legislated for civil unions or domestic partnership registries. Such unions are recognised as de facto relationships under federal law.

Prior to legalisation, 22 same-sex marriage related bills were introduced to Parliament between September 2004 and May 2017, none of which passed into law. These failed attempts came after the Howard Government amended the law in August 2004 to exclude same-sex marriages. The Australian Capital Territory passed a same-sex marriage law in December 2013, though this was struck down by the High Court on the grounds that such a law could only be introduced by the Commonwealth.

Sovereign state

In international law, a sovereign state, sovereign country, or simply state, is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.While according to the declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office is a commercial enterprise of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and is operating in the United States. The United States does not formally recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The staff of the Representative Offices do not have diplomatic visas and only operate within the United States using business visas. It is located at 1667 K Street, Northwest in Washington, D.C. The Representative Office in New York City is the de facto mission of the TRNC to the United Nations Organization (as well as a de facto Consulate-General).

Unregistered cohabitation

Unregistered cohabitation is a legal status (sometimes de facto) given to same-sex or opposite-sex couples in certain jurisdictions. They may be similar to common-law marriages.

More specifically, unregistered cohabitation may refer to:

Unregistered cohabitation in Australia and De facto relationships in Australia Domestic relationships and domestic partnerships in the Australian Capital Territory

Domestic relationships in New South Wales

De facto unions in the Northern Territory

De facto unions in Norfolk Island

De facto relationships in Queensland

Close personal relationships in South Australia

Personal relationships in Tasmania

Domestic relationships in Victoria

De facto unions in Western Australia

Various de facto relationships in Canada Adult interdependent relationship in Alberta

Common-law relationships in Manitoba

Domestic partnership in Nova Scotia

Civil unions and de facto relationships in Quebec

De facto unions in Colombia

Unregistered cohabitation in Croatia

Unregistered cohabitation in Israel

Samenlevingscontract in the Netherlands

De facto relationships in New Zealand

Unregistered cohabitation in Poland

Unregistered cohabitation in San MarinoSome other countries and sub-national regions recognize unregistered cohabitation, as listed in the Civil union article.

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.