Language:
PRODUCTS▾
Home Core Serverless Edition Why It’s Different CDS — Constitutional Screening STFL — Sovereign Transaction Finance Layer Defence 🏰 Verify Security All Gates
MORE▾
ASSURANCE
Execution Rights Capabilities Authoritative Sources Evidence Evidence Registry Fortress Baseline Adversarial Verification Machine Law Evolution
SOLUTIONS
Institutions Jurisdictions Due Diligence
RESOURCES
Facts Press Newsroom FAQ Machine Law — The Book Gate SDK Gamechangers The Sound of Machine Law
COMMERCIAL
Pricing Investors
Quantum Security 🔍 Search Request Access →
gateTransatlanticConflict — Collision Resolution Gate
// IMMO.QUICK · GATETRANSATLANTICCONFLICT · STANDALONE THIRD GATE

Two legal orders, one resolution.

gateTransatlanticConflict receives the result objects from gateEULaws and gateTransatlanticUSLaws and deterministically resolves four known collision patterns, instead of merely documenting them side by side. Support for cross-border transactions, never a replacement for a regulator's own recognition as evidence.

Request Access → See the architecture
In one sentence: gateTransatlanticConflict is not a subsection, it is a standalone, independently callable third gate with its own engine_version, running after gateEULaws and gateTransatlanticUSLaws and resolving their results against each other.
✓ RELEVANT IF...
  • You check a transaction under both gateEULaws and gateTransatlanticUSLaws simultaneously
  • You need to forensically prove which legal order prevailed in a conflict
✕ NOT RELEVANT IF...
  • Only one of the two legal orders is involved, without overlap
  • You expect a court to automatically recognise the result as a conflict-of-laws ruling
// The problem

Two parallel gates are not enough when they contradict each other.

gateEULaws and gateTransatlanticUSLaws run independently and each return their own result. But the EU Blocking Regulation, the GDPR, US export control, and sanctions law can contradict each other. Simply adding both results together would conceal that conflict instead of resolving it. gateTransatlanticConflict exists precisely for this.

① gateEULaws → ② gateTransatlanticUSLaws → ③ gateTransatlanticConflict (this page)
// Architecture

Four collision patterns, deterministically resolved.

Both result objects (eu_result, us_result) must be present as an object with a .gates array, otherwise the gate responds with HTTP 400 (EU_RESULT_OBJECT_REQUIRED or US_RESULT_OBJECT_REQUIRED).

TRANSATL_C1 · EU-BLOCKING-VERORDNUNG (VO (EG) 2271/96)
EU Blocking Regulation vs. US sanctions
DETECTION
us_law_triggered matches an entry on the annex list (including US_IRAN_SANCTIONS_ACT, US_CUBA_LIBERTY_ACT_HELMS_BURTON, US_RUSSIA_SANCTIONS_IEEPA) AND eu_entity_involved = true. The list can be overridden via blocking_statute_annex_list, otherwise the hard-coded fallback list applies.
RESOLUTION
If eu_commission_exemption_hash (Art. 5(2)) exists as an 8+ character string: PASS, prevailing_norm EU. Otherwise: BLOCK with TRANSATL_C1_BLOCKING_STATUTE_OVERRIDE, gateTransatlanticUSLaws is denied enforcement, not the underlying transaction.
TRANSATL_C2 · DSGVO ART. 44 FF. VS. FATCA
GDPR third-country transfer vs. FATCA reporting duty
DETECTION
fatca_reporting_required = true AND data_subject_eu_resident = true.
RESOLUTION
If sccs_hash (standard contractual clause) or adequacy_decision = true exists: PASS, both duties fulfilled simultaneously. Otherwise: BLOCK with TRANSATL_C2_GDPR_FATCA_NO_TRANSFER_BASIS, the IRS report is suspended until the GDPR transfer basis is supplied. GDPR prevails as a fundamental-rights norm.
TRANSATL_C3 · DATA ACT VS. EAR
Data Act portability vs. US export control
DETECTION
data_portability_clause_present = true AND data_classified_dual_use = true.
RESOLUTION
If ear_license_exception_hash exists: PASS, prevailing_norm US, portability is granted. Otherwise: BLOCK with TRANSATL_C3_DATAACT_EAR_CONFLICT. Export control prevails because the physical spread of controlled technology is the higher-ranking protected interest here.
TRANSATL_C4 · OFAC ÜBERSTIMMT CSDDD
CSDDD pass vs. OFAC sanctions hit
DETECTION
supply_chain_environmental_threshold_breached = false (supplier passes CSDDD) AND ofac_sdn_list_hit = true.
RESOLUTION
Not a genuine conflict of norms, but a hierarchy: sanctions law always prevails. BLOCK with TRANSATL_C4_OFAC_OVERRIDES_CSDDD_PASS, prevailing_norm SANCTIONS, regardless of the CSDDD result.
Return structure
In addition to the patterns_evaluated array with all four evaluations, the gate returns the central transatlantic_conflict object.
transatlantic_conflict: { conflict_detected: true|false, pattern_matched: "TRANSATL_C1" | "TRANSATL_C2" | "TRANSATL_C3" | "TRANSATL_C4" | null, prevailing_norm: "EU" | "US" | "SANCTIONS" | null, resolution_hash: string | null, overall_result: "pass" | "block" }
// Test results

Four tested patterns, all under 800ms.

All values on this page are fictional test data and serve only to illustrate the gate logic.

Pattern Scenario Result Prevailing Latency
TRANSATL_C1Iran sanctions, no Commission exemptionBLOCKEU518ms
TRANSATL_C2FATCA vs. GDPR without standard contractual clauseBLOCKEU502ms
TRANSATL_C3Data Act dual-use with EAR licence exceptionPASSUS536ms
TRANSATL_C4CSDDD pass with OFAC SDN hitBLOCKSANCTIONS336ms
// Clarification

What gateTransatlanticConflict is not.

  • Not automatic recognition by a court or a regulator. The gate delivers a cryptographic proof, not a judicial conflict-of-laws ruling.
  • Not a replacement for gateEULaws or gateTransatlanticUSLaws. It runs only after both and requires their result objects as input.

For institutions that need to forensically resolve transatlantic legal conflicts.

Request Access → access@immoquick.eu
Request Access →