contradictory laws
<p>If there are multiple laws:</p>
<p>a) in a country (all the laws in one country)</p>
<p>b) in multilple different countries and / or multinational unions (all laws in different entities, e.g. all in a different country)</p>
<p>that contradict each other, what is a person supposed to do to follow the law? Those are two separate questions: a), b).</p>
<p>I prefer to discuss these questions in general.</p>
<p>example of b) Mr. Peter is a cook. He intends to become a solo entrepreneuer, have employees, in two different European Union countries and sell e.g. pizzas on a busy place. According to the both countries' law, he has to pay a health insurance in each country, where he is a solo entrepreneur. But according to the European Union law, the maximum number of countries to pay health insurance is at most one.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Those are two separate questions: a), b).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Please don't ask two questions at once.  I'll cover your 1st question.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If there are multiple laws in a country [...] that contradict each other, what is a person supposed to do to follow the law?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As a very rough outline of how contradictory laws are treated:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Federal law trumps state law (the supremacy clause of the constitution).</p>
</li>
<li><p>Specific laws trump general laws.  This apply both between contradictory laws and also to internal contradictions within laws.</p>
</li>
<li><p>New laws trump old laws.  If a new law contradicts an old law, then the new law has implicitly repealed the old law (i.e., repealed the parts that were contradicted).</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Note that in general, courts try not to disregard laws.
E.g., if federal law says, &quot;do X&quot;, state law say &quot;do Y&quot;, and the only way to do both is some weird, perhaps-not-intended Z, then the court will typically respond to a violation by saying, &quot;you should have done Z,&quot; rather than saying, &quot;the state law was preempted.&quot;</p>

international