Which statement describes de jure sovereignty vs de facto sovereignty?

• A. De jure sovereignty is recognized by international law; de facto sovereignty is actual control of territory; Example: Taiwan has a local government and control but contested international recognition.
• B. De jure sovereignty is actual control of territory, while de facto sovereignty is recognized by international law.
• C. De jure sovereignty depends on economic power, while de facto sovereignty depends on military alliances.
• D. De jure sovereignty is hypothetical; de facto sovereignty is legally defined.

Answer: (A)

De jure sovereignty refers to the legal status of a state as recognized by international law—the rights and duties that come with being the sovereign actor in the eyes of other states and international institutions. De facto sovereignty, on the other hand, is about actual power and control on the ground—the ability to govern, enforce laws, and run a territory and its institutions, regardless of formal recognition.

Taiwan illustrates this distinction well: it has its own government, administers its territory, and conducts day-to-day governance, but its formal recognition as a sovereign state by many countries and international organizations is contested. That separation shows how a polity can have de facto sovereignty without universal de jure recognition.

The other statements mix up these ideas or rely on different factors. Saying de jure is actual control or that de facto is recognized by international law reverses their meanings. Linking de jure to economic power or de facto to military alliances shifts the discussion away from the legal recognition versus actual governance distinction. And calling de jure hypothetical undermines the legal status framework that international law uses to describe sovereignty.