territory entitled to the acquisition of a “full measure of self-government” in line with General Assembly Resolution 1541(XV) of 1960.33 From a legal outlook, it is supported that the Decolonization Declaration, recognized as customary law, should be applied within the borders of Mandatory Palestine, including the Palestinian territory colonized, annexed and recognized by the international community as Israel in 1948. The combination of Israeli colonial and apartheid practices aimed at achieving a hybrid system of systemic oppression of an entire population naturally comes at the expense of the Palestinian people’s legitimate right to self-determination. This necessarily implies that the achievement of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination could not seriously be fathomed except outside of the apartheid- colonial system of Israel that is the end product of a century of apartheid-colonial policies and practices in Palestine. Self-determination through the decolonization of Palestine within its mandatory borders is further confirmed and supported by the customary legal principle of uti possidetis juris,34 which provides that states rising out of decolonization should inherit the former colonial administrative borders. The doctrine of uti possidetis juris has been consistently mobilized to solve border disputes concerning decolonized borders in general, starting with Latin America and Africa.35 Interestingly enough, the principle has been subsequently applied to settle border disputes between former mandatory states, attributing the city of Mosul to Iraq, setting the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border along the mandatory lines, and giving the Walvis Bay enclave to Namibia.36 33 UNGA, A/RES/1541, in supra 10. 34 The principle emerged in the wake of the first decolonization wave in South American. See Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute, id., 565-567, available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/ public/files/case-related/69/06919861222-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf 35 Steven Ratner, “Drawing a Better Line: UTI Possidetis and the Borders of New States,” American Journal of International Law 90, no. 4 (1996), 593-595; Organization of African Unity, Border Disputes Among African States, AHG/Res.16(1), 17-21 July 1964, available at: https://au.int/sites/default/files/ decisions/9514-1964_ahg_res_1-24_i_e.pdf 36 See League of Nations, Question of the Frontier Between Turkey and Iraq: Report Submitted to the Council of the League of Nations by the Commission Instituted by the Council Resolution, 30th September 1924, available at: https://biblio-archive.unog.ch/Dateien/CouncilMSD/C-400-M-147-1925-VII_BI.pdf; UN Secretary General, Letter dated 21 May 1993 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, para. 27-40, S/25811, 21 May 1993; UN Security Council, Security Council Resolution 432, S/RES/432, 27 July 1978, available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/71635?ln=ar [accessed 1 November 2021]. 13