The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has recently unveiled a revised version of its Arbitration Rules, which have come into effect on 1 June 2026 (the “2026 Rules”). The 2026 Rules apply to all requests for arbitration filed on or after this date, unless the parties agree otherwise. They replace the previous ICC Arbitration Rules, which were in force from 1 January 2021 until 31 May 2026.

The latest revisions - both amending existing provisions and introducing new procedures - have been presented as seeking to enhance the efficiency, clarity and usability of the ICC’s arbitration services and reflecting the ongoing evolution of arbitration practice.

This Client Alert summarises the most significant changes and considers their practical effects.

Removal of Mandatory Terms of Reference (Arts. 24-25)

Before the advent of the 2026 Rules, the Terms of Reference (the “ToR”) constituted a mandatory step in ICC proceedings, setting it apart from other institutional rules. The main purpose of the ToR is to confirm the parties’ consent to arbitrate, record key procedural agreements at an early stage and define the scope of the dispute, including a list of issues to be determined.

However, for many arbitration practitioners the process of defining the scope of the dispute or agreeing on a list of issues at such an early stage of the proceedings is not always the most efficient approach.

Under the 2026 Rules, the ToR are no longer a mandatory step in ICC proceedings. A significant practical effect of the removal of the requirement of ToR is that the Case Management Conference (the “CMC”) held at the initial stages of the proceedings, which remains mandatory and must be held within 30 days of the transmission of the file to the tribunal, plays an even more important role in structuring the proceedings. Now, the date of the CMC, rather than the signature of the ToR, marks the cut-off point from which no party may introduce new claims without the authorisation of the tribunal (Art. 25). This shifts the “cut-off” to a point earlier in the proceedings. Consequently, parties must act quickly to set out their claims as comprehensively as possible in the Request for Arbitration and Answer and Counterclaim stages.

This development is a welcome step in enhancing procedural flexibility and improving efficiency whilst reducing costs.

Introduction of Early Determination Procedure for Manifestly Unjustified Claims or Defences (Art. 30)

Early determination, first referenced by the ICC in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of Arbitration in 2017, has long formed part of the ICC arbitral practice. Although prior to the 2026 Rules it was not expressly contemplated in the ICC Rules, it was generally understood that an arbitral tribunal had the implied power to determine an application for early determination.

In order to remove any doubt about an arbitral tribunal’s power to use this tool in ICC proceedings, the early determination procedure has now been formalised in Art. 30 of the 2026 Rules. Under this new provision, a party may apply for the early determination of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction, subject to the tribunal’s discretion to allow such an application to proceed. If the tribunal accepts the application, it may adopt whichever procedural measures it considers appropriate after consulting the parties.

The formal incorporation of this rule brings the ICC’s procedural framework in close alignment on this point with the rules of other leading arbitral institutions, for example London International Court of Arbitration Rules (Art.22(viii)), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Rules (Art. 43) and Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules (Art. 47), which provide for similar mechanisms.

This mechanism promotes efficiency. By allowing arbitral tribunals to dispose of claims or defences that are clearly untenable at an early stage in the proceedings, time and costs may be saved.

Updated and Enhanced Arbitrator Disclosure Framework (Art. 12)

The independence and impartiality of arbitrators are the core pillars of international arbitration and ensure the legitimacy of the process. An arbitrator’s disclosure obligation is central to the assessment of independence and impartiality. The 2026 Rules strengthen the disclosure framework.

First, to encourage prompt and full disclosure, the 2026 Rules now set out that: (i) any doubts as to whether a disclosure should be made should be resolved in favour of disclosure (Art. 12(2)) and (ii) “[a] disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality” (Art. 12(4)).

Also, the 2026 Rules now expressly describe the arbitrator’s disclosure obligation as “an ongoing duty to immediately disclose” relevant facts and circumstances, strengthening the language from the previous formulation that the arbitrator shall simply “immediately disclose” (Art. 12(3)).

Together, these changes clarify the expectations around disclosures, while also reassuring prospective arbitrators that disclosure alone should not be understood as an admission of conflict.

Second, the 2026 Rules have moved towards a more structured and proactive approach by introducing a mandatory procedural step requiring each party to submit, early in the case, to the Secretariat a list of persons and entities that prospective arbitrators should consider for disclosure purposes, together with the reasons for their inclusion (Art. 12(5)). This list aims to assist arbitrators, who nonetheless remain ultimately responsible for their own disclosures.

Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions, Expedited Procedure Provisions, and Emergency Arbitration Procedure

The changes brought about by the 2026 Rules to its expedited and emergency procedures, outlined below, illustrate that providing streamlined and effective procedures is a priority in the 2026 Rules.

Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”) (Appendix VI)

One of the major innovations of the 2026 Rules is the introduction of HEAP under which the final award is to be issued within three months of the CMC (Appendix VI, Art. 7(1)). The parties must choose to opt-in this procedure, either in the arbitration agreement or once the dispute has arisen. The procedure involves the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Whether the procedure is appropriate or not does not depend just on the value of the claims (and indeed there is no financial threshold), but also on the complexity of the issues. Indeed, the ICC in its online series of publications introducing the 2026 Rules states that it expects such procedure to be suitable for “lower-complexity commercial disputes, claims with a simple factual matrix or a distinct aspect of a dispute, which requires swift resolution – such as technology or sports-related disputes or purchase price adjustments”. While HEAP may significantly shorten the duration of an arbitration, HEAP is not intended for factually or legally complex disputes.

Parties may also agree to an award without reasons, which can be appealing for parties which are interested in time and cost efficiencies.

Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”) (Appendix V, Art. 1(3)(c))

The 2026 Rules have also expanded access to the EPP, which now applies automatically to disputes worth up to USD 4 million (up from the previous USD 3 million threshold) (Appendix V, Art. 1(3)(c)). This amendment can streamline and reduce the costs of many arbitration proceedings. Parties to disputes falling within the EPP threshold should, however, carefully consider whether the EPP would be suitable for their dispute or if the dispute raises complex legal or evidentiary issues such that EPP would not be appropriate.

Emergency Arbitration Procedure (“EA”) (Appendix IV, Arts. 1 and 7)

The 2026 Rules have introduced two notable clarifications aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of EA proceedings, which allow for urgent interim or conservatory relief prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

First, the 2026 Rules expand the access to the system: EA proceedings can now be initiated against not only parties that are signatories to the arbitration agreement and their successors (as was previously the case), but also against “any party for which the President is satisfied […] that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist” (Appendix IV, Art. 1(2)(c)).

Second, the 2026 Rules expressly recognise the availability of preliminary orders within EA proceedings, including on an ex parte basis (Appendix IV, Art. 7). They provide that a party may, at any stage of EA proceedings, request a preliminary order directing another party “not to frustrate the purpose” of the application for emergency relief.

Conclusion

Overall, the ICC’s 2026 Rules underscore the ICC’s determination to maintain its role as a leading global arbitral institution by further streamlining proceedings and enhancing the case management tools available to tribunals. They also reflect a continued policy focus on transparency and robust disclosure, seeking to enhance users’ confidence in both the integrity and efficiency of ICC arbitration.