On 1 June 2026, the revised ICC Arbitration Rules (the 2026 Rules) entered into force, replacing the prior 2021 edition. The 2026 Rules are the product of extensive consultation with the international arbitral community and touch on nearly every stage of the arbitral process, with the overarching objectives of enhancing efficiency, clarity, and usability. In the following, we will discuss the most significant changes for parties and in-house counsel.
The most significant procedural changes
The most significant procedural changes to the 2026 Rules concern (1) the removal of mandatory terms of reference; (2) the arbitrator’s independence, impartiality, and disclosure; (3) the introduction of a procedure for early determination; and (4) the introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP).
1. Removal of mandatory Terms of Reference
One of the most significant procedural changes in the 2026 Rules is the removal of mandatory Terms of Reference in standard ICC Arbitration proceedings. Historically, Terms of Reference served to confirm the parties’ consent to arbitrate, record key procedural agreements at an early stage, and define the scope of the dispute. However, their preparation — including frequently granted extensions — could add weeks or even months to the proceedings.
In light of the experience gained since the introduction of the Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP) in 2017, under the 2026 Rules, Terms of Reference are no longer a necessary step, although arbitral tribunals remain free to adopt them where deemed appropriate to facilitate the management of the arbitration.
As a consequence, the initial Case Management Conference (CMC), which remains mandatory under Article 24 of the 2026 Rules and must be held within 30 days of file transmission, now assumes a more central procedural role as the key milestone for framing the dispute and structuring the proceedings.
Relatedly, the cutoff for introducing new claims is now tied to the CMC (Article 25 of the 2026 Rules).
2. Arbitrator’s independence, impartiality, and disclosure
Among the most significant updates in the 2026 Rules are the targeted clarifications concerning the disclosure obligations of arbitrators. The 2026 Rules maintain the long-standing disclosure standard under which prospective arbitrators must disclose in writing any facts or circumstances that might call into question their independence or give rise to reasonable doubts as to their impartiality (Article 12(2) of the 2026 Rules).
Additionally, two key principles (previously set out only in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration) have now been included in the Rules:
- any doubts a prospective arbitrator may have about whether to make a disclosure “shall be resolved in favour of disclosure” (Article 12(2) of the 2026 Rules); and
- a “disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality” (Article 12(4) of the 2026 Rules).
These provisions are intended to encourage prompt and full disclosure while reassuring prospective arbitrators that disclosure alone should not be understood as an admission of conflict.
Additionally, Article 12(5) of the 2026 Rules introduces a new mechanism for proactive party engagement in the disclosure process. To assist prospective arbitrators in complying with their disclosure obligations, each party must now submit to the ICC Secretariat a list of persons and entities that they believe the prospective arbitrators should consider, together with the reasons for such consideration. This structured approach aims to promote efficiency and reduce the risk of late-stage issues, while keeping the arbitrator ultimately responsible for making any necessary disclosure.
Finally, Article 14(2) of the 2026 Rules allows the ICC Secretary General to submit arbitrator confirmation decisions to the ICC Court even without a challenge, codifying existing practice.
3. Early Determination
The 2026 Rules introduce a procedure for early determination by the arbitral tribunal (previously described only in the Note to Parties). Any party may apply to the arbitral tribunal for the early determination of one or more claims or defences on the grounds that such claims or defences are manifestly without merit or such claims or defences are manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. The arbitral tribunal shall determine in its discretion whether to allow the application to proceed and consequently adopt the procedural measures it considers appropriate, after consulting the parties (Article 30 of the 2026 Rules).
The formalisation of early determination procedures in the 2026 Rules gives parties an additional tool to dispose of manifestly unmeritorious claims or jurisdictional objections at an early stage, potentially saving significant time and costs.
4. The introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions
The 2026 Rules introduce an entirely new procedural mechanism: the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions, set out under Article 33 of the 2026 Rules and in Appendix VI. HEAP is available on an opt-in basis and provides for a final award to be issued within three months of the initial CMC, regardless of the amount in dispute.
HEAP is designed for lower-complexity commercial disputes, claims with a simple factual matrix, or a discrete aspect of a dispute requiring swift resolution, such as technology or sports-related disputes or purchase price adjustments. Parties may agree to apply HEAP in the arbitration agreement or after a dispute has arisen. Disputes under HEAP are decided by a sole arbitrator nominated by the parties within 20 days (or by the ICC Court as swiftly as possible if the parties cannot agree), and the proceedings are accelerated from the outset by requiring parties to frontload their case: the statement of claim must be filed with the request for arbitration, and the statement of defense with the answer, both supported by evidence and legal authorities. The sole arbitrator has broad discretion to adopt procedural measures, including deciding the case solely on documents and declining document production requests. Parties may also agree to receive an award without reasons. Since HEAP is not intended for procedurally complex disputes, joinder and consolidation are not available.
The new HEAP mechanism (together with the expanded Emergency Procedure Provisions threshold, see below) contributes to offering parties a broader menu of procedural options allowing them to match the procedure to the complexity and urgency of their dispute
Other relevant changes
The revision of the ICC Arbitration Rules has also introduced a number of other relevant changes, briefly outlined below.
1. Arbitrators’ confidentiality
Arbitrators are now expressly required to keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration unless otherwise in the public domain, agreed by the parties, required by applicable law, or necessary to protect a legal right or comply with disclosure obligations (Article 12(8) of the 2026 Rules).
The confidentiality obligations of the members of the ICC Court and the ICC Secretariat remain unchanged, while no default confidentiality provisions apply to the parties, who continue to retain the ability to agree on the scope of confidentiality of their arbitration, either in the arbitration agreement or during the proceedings.
2. Written Communications
Written communications (more specifically, the request, the answer, any counterclaim, and any request for joinder) shall be sent electronically to the ICC Secretariat as the default. Hard copies of these documents shall only be submitted where a party requests transmission against receipt, registered post or courier, or if electronic transmission is not practicable (Article 3 of the 2026 Rules).
This change reflects the general aim to increase efficiency and supports more streamlined case management for parties, arbitrators and the ICC Secretariat alike. Moreover, this amendment aligns with the launch of the ICC’s digital case management platform (ICC Case Connect ).
3. Truncated Tribunal
The ICC Court may now decide to proceed with a truncated tribunal — rather than replacing an arbitrator who has died or been removed — after the last hearing or the filing of the last substantive submissions, whichever is later (Article 16(5) of the 2026 Rules). In making such a determination, the ICC Court shall take into account the views of the remaining arbitrators and of the parties and such other matters that it considers appropriate in the circumstances. Previously, this option was available only after the closing of the proceedings. This change provides greater flexibility and helps avoid unnecessary delays in the final stages of arbitration.
4. Tribunal Secretary
The 2026 Rules formalise the role of tribunal secretaries. After consulting with the parties, the arbitral tribunal may appoint a tribunal secretary to work under its direction and control, without delegating decision-making authority. Tribunal secretaries must satisfy the same independence, impartiality, and confidentiality requirements as arbitrators and must sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality, and independence before their appointment (Article 44(2) of the 2026 Rules). In addition, appointing a tribunal secretary shall not create any additional financial burden on the parties, and direct arrangements between the arbitral tribunal and the parties regarding the tribunal secretary’s fees are prohibited (Article 7 of Appendix III).
5. Deliberations and Hearings in Hybrid and Electronic Form
The 2026 Rules expressly permit deliberations and hearings “in hybrid form or by videoconference, teleconference, or other form of electronic communication” (see Articles 19(3) and 27(1) of the 2026 Rules). These provisions codify practices that became widespread during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and give parties and tribunals greater procedural flexibility.
6. Scrutiny of the Award by the ICC Court
Under the 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules, the ICC Court’s scrutiny of draft awards was limited to the requirements of mandatory law at the place of the arbitration. Under Article 37(3) of the 2026 Rules, the ICC Court now considers, to the extent practicable, the validity and enforceability of the award and the requirements of mandatory law at the place of the arbitration. This expanded scope reinforces the ICC’s commitment to ensuring that awards rendered under its auspices are as robust and enforceable as possible.
7. Time limits for awards
The 2026 Rules replace the default time limit of six months from the last signature of the Terms of Reference (rarely followed in practice) with a more flexible approach. The new Article 34 now provides that the President of the ICC Court shall fix the time limit, or subsequently extend the time limit, for rendering the final award, taking into account (i) the procedural timetable, or (ii) a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal.
This new provision reflects the diversity of the ICC arbitrations and vests the authority to fix and extend time limits in the President of the ICC Court, with a view to enhancing efficiency and strengthening oversight of proceedings timelines.
Importantly, the revised framework does not affect the strict timelines under the EEP and the HEAP, which remain subject to their own procedures. Fee reductions for unjustified delays and scrutiny of draft awards will continue to apply in all ICC arbitrations.
8. Signature and Notification of the Award
To further enhance the efficiency of ICC Arbitration, Article 38 of the 2026 Rules provides that, after consulting with the parties and considering all relevant circumstances, the arbitral tribunal may: (a) sign the award electronically; (b) sign the award in counterparts; and/or (c) request the ICC Secretariat to notify the award in paper or electronic format, or any other manner permitted by law.
9. Expedited Procedure Provisions
The core features of the EPP (including the default appointment of a sole arbitrator, an award within six months of the initial CMC, shorter procedural timelines, limits on submissions and hearings, and lower overall costs) remain unchanged. The principal change in the 2026 Rules is an increase in the monetary threshold for the automatic application to USD 4 million (from USD 3 million under the 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules) for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. In any case, parties remain free to opt in or out of the EPP regardless of the amount in dispute.
10. Emergency Arbitration
The 2026 Rules introduce several clarifications to the Emergency Arbitration (EA) provisions.
In particular, the rules now clarify that, under the 2026 Rules, emergency relief may be sought only against (a) parties that are signatories to the arbitration agreement; (b) their successors; or (c) any party for which the President of the ICC Court is satisfied, based on the information in the application, that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist.
Furthermore, the 2026 Rules explicitly allow preliminary orders in emergency arbitrator proceedings for the first time. At any stage of the emergency arbitrator proceedings, a party may request a preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the application. Such a request may be made and decided upon without notice to all other parties. Procedural safeguards are in place: if the preliminary order is granted, the emergency arbitrator must immediately afford all other parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case and is expressly empowered to modify or revoke the order in light of subsequent submissions.
11. Advance on Costs and Bank Guarantees
The 2026 Rules introduce additional flexibility in the payment of advances on costs. A party may now request to post a bank guarantee in specified circumstances, including to cover amounts exceeding established thresholds or to pay the unpaid portion owed by a defaulting party. The ICC Secretariat shall determine the terms and conditions governing such bank guarantees (Article 40(8) of the 2026 Rules).
12. Case Management techniques
The list of Case Management techniques that was previously contained in Appendix IV of the 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules has been removed from the 2026 Rules. Article 23(2) of the 2026 Rules provides that the arbitral tribunal may adopt procedural measures, including one or more of the case management techniques described in the guidance notes issued by the ICC Secretariat, taking into account the work of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. This approach is designed to ensure that case management techniques can be more easily updated to reflect evolving practice without requiring a formal amendment to the Rules.
13. Fees and Costs
The 2026 Rules move details of the fees and costs into the Schedule of Fees, with the ICC Secretary General assuming most cost-related functions (including fixing advances on costs), while the ICC Court retains authority over arbitrators’ fees and the ICC administrative expenses. Administrative expense scales have been reduced for disputes below USD 10 million and increased for larger cases.
14. Governance
The 2026 Rules provide that the ICC Court consists of “a President, Vice-Presidents, and members”, eliminating the previous reference to Alternate Court Members (which, in current practice, participate equally with Court Members in the work of the ICC Court).
Conclusion
The 2026 Rules represent a significant modernisation of the ICC framework, aimed at enhancing efficiency, transparency, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness in international arbitration and at embracing digitalisation, with the declared goal to further contribute to a more user-friendly and reliable arbitral process and to ensure that ICC Arbitration remains the gold standard in international dispute resolution — not only in terms of quality and reliability, but also in terms of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and adaptability to the diverse needs of its users worldwide.
References
2026 Arbitration Rules – ICC – International Chamber of Commerce
