Resultado da Busca
27 de mai. de 2019 · De facto comes from a Latin phrase meaning “in reality or as a matter of fact.”. In legal contexts, de facto describes what really happens, in contrast with de jure, which explains what the law says should happen.
de jure. law. de facto, a legal concept used to refer to what happens in reality or in practice, as opposed to de jure (“from the law”), which refers to what is actually notated in legal code. For example, a de facto leader is someone who exerts authority over a country but whose legitimacy is broadly rejected, while a de jure leader has a ...
De Jure vs de facto . Malgré le fait que nous entendions les expressions latines de Jure et de facto si souvent et les lisons également principalement dans les journaux, dans des environnements juridiques et politiques, beaucoup d'entre nous auraient du mal à faire la différence exacte entre les deux.
5 de out. de 2023 · 7. The concept of de jure segregation involves separation enforced by law, whereas de facto segregation reflects separation occurring in reality, often due to social, economic, or other non-legislated reasons. Here, de jure portrays legislated circumstances while de facto portrays circumstances that arise organically, outside legal constructs. 14.
The NAACP’s long battle against de jure segregation culminated in the Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, which overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine. Former NAACP Branch Secretary Rosa Parks’ refusal to yield her seat to a white man sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the modern civil rights movement.
2. de jure vs. de facto. . 우리 말의 "법률상"과 "사실상"과 정확히 일치하는 영어 표현으로 de jure와 de facto가 있습니다. 아래 예문을 통해 좀 더 구체적으로 살펴보겠습니다. . "The international community has largely accommodated North Korea's new status as a de facto nuclear weapons state ...
The ruling clarified the distinction between de jure and de facto segregation, confirming that segregation was allowed if it was not considered an explicit policy of each school district. In particular, the Court held that the school systems were not responsible for desegregation across district lines unless it could be shown that they had each deliberately engaged in a policy of segregation.
