On 1 June 2026, the new ICC Rules of Arbitration (“2026 ICC Arbitration Rules”) came into effect and apply to all arbitrations governed by the ICC Rules commenced on or after 1 June 2026, unless the parties agree otherwise. The previous version of the ICC Arbitration Rules was from 2021.

As is well known, the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) is the institution that has historically administered the largest number of international commercial arbitrations (at the end of 2024, there were 1,789 cases pending, of which 841 had been commenced that year; in 2025, 851 new cases were initiated) and yet, for some time now, it has faced ‘competition’ from other arbitral institutions that have recently updated their rules, such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), or are preparing to do so, such as the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”).

The 2026 revisions – following in-depth consultations – aim to improve certain aspects relating to the efficiency and integrity of the process and to address some long-standing issues, such as the average duration of arbitrations (around two years, with notable cases lasting several years), bringing them into line with the needs of the business world.

In this regard, the most significant changes relate to streamlining the process, introducing or strengthening mechanisms to optimise efficiency and fast-track procedures, as summarised below:

• Terms of Reference (“ToR”): the requirement for the so-called Terms of Reference (ToR) – which has always been a cornerstone of ICC arbitration – has been removed. Previously, this document, signed by the parties at the outset, set out their respective claims, defences, objections and counterclaims, defining the scope of the dispute and listing the issues to be decided. In practice, the drafting and sharing of the ToR led to delays and often proved to be an effort that was made obsolete by subsequent stages of the proceedings. Its role is now taken by the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”), convened by the tribunal within 30 days of receiving the file and marking the deadline for submitting claims (unless authorised by the tribunal). This should mean that, compared to the past (when the request for arbitration and the answer were slim documents), the parties are now expected to set out their respective claims, objections, defences and counterclaims in detail in the request for arbitration and the response, and that altogether the initial timeframe is shortened.  

• “Early determination” of claims/defences: Article 30 codifies a principle previously set out in a 2017 ICC ‘Note’ to parties and arbitrators (thereby removing any remaining doubts as to its feasibility and bringing it into line with other arbitral institutions): each party may request that the Arbitral Tribunal at an early stage of the arbitration rule on (or dismiss) claims or objections that are “manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction”. The Tribunal decides at its discretion whether to proceed with the early determinationand, if so, sets out the procedural steps. This is a procedural efficiency measure designed to clear the way at an early stage of manifestly unfounded claims but which, paradoxically, also lends itself to abuse and attempts to disrupt proceedings and prolong the process. In fact, at other arbitral institutions, applications for early determinationhave been made in fewer than 10 per cent of cases and granted in an even smaller proportion (partly due to concerns that they might give rise to challenges on grounds of infringement of due process/right to be heard);

• Truncated Tribunals: where a member of the Arbitral Tribunal ceases to hold office (due to resignation, death or any other reason) prior to the award, the 2021 Rules allowed the ICC Court to authorise the remaining members to proceed without replacement only after the formal closure of the arbitral proceedings. Under the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, the ICC Court may authorise the truncated tribunalto proceed after the later of the last hearing and the filing of the last submission (i.e. after the parties have fully presented their cases). This should prevent, in such circumstances, the reopening of stages of the arbitration that have already been concluded, in the interests of procedural efficiency – although it remains to be seen how the ICC Court will exercise its power of authorisation;

• Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”): introduced in March 2017, the expedited procedure now applies automatically to disputes with a value of up to $4 million (if the arbitration clause was agreed on or after 1 June 2026) – the previous threshold was $3 million (for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 January 2021). According to ICC statistics, more than 40 per cent of cases have a value of less than $4 million; the increase in the threshold is expected to automatically bring a greater number of disputes under the Expedited Procedure, unless the parties opt outor the ICC Court determines that the EP is not appropriate given the complexity of the case. On the other hand, the parties may also decide to adopt the Expedited Procedure (opt-in)if the value of the dispute exceeds $4 million –a choice made in 16% of EPP cases up to 2024. The procedure remains the simplified one already in place in 2021: the ICC Court may appoint a sole arbitrator even if the arbitration agreement provides for a panel; the arbitrator (or the tribunal) has broad discretion in setting the procedure; they may limit written submissions, requests for the production of documents, witness statements and reports by party-appointed experts, and may decide solely on the basis of the documents, without examining witnesses or experts and without holding a hearing. The arbitrator (or the arbitral tribunal) must render the award within six months of the initial CMC, which must be held within 15 days of the file being transmitted to the arbitrator or the tribunal. The ICC reports that 63% of EPP awards were in fact rendered within six months.   

• Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”): this is the most significant new feature of the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules and a further acceleration compared to EPP, with the aim of having an award within three months of the initial CMC, to meet the need for the rapid resolution of certain disputes. Access to HEAP requires the consent of the parties; the Secretary-General of the ICC must conduct a prima facie assessment, based on the information in the request for arbitration, to determine whether there is an arbitration agreement binding the parties to HEAP: if not, the arbitration proceeds under the EPP or the ordinary Rules. HEAP always provides for a sole arbitrator, to be appointed by the parties within 20 days (or, failing that, by the ICC Court). The parties must set out their respective cases in their initial submissions: the request for arbitration must be accompanied by the Statement of Claim and the relevant evidence, just as the Answer must be accompanied by the Statement of Defence and the attached evidence. The CMC must take place within 7 days of the file being forwarded to the arbitrator, and the three-month time limit for rendering the award and notifying it to the parties begins to run from that date. The arbitrator has broad discretion in determining the procedure; s/he may limit written submissions, exclude requests for the production of documents, reduce the number of witness statements and expert reports, and may decide solely on the basis of the documents, without a hearing or the examination of witnesses and experts. Third-party proceedings or the joinder of proceedings are not permitted. The HEAP also allow the parties to agree that the award should be rendered solely in the dispositive section, without reasons (which may create some uncertainty on appeal or enforcement, depending on the seat of arbitration).

• Emergency Arbitration (“EA”): the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce two significant changes to the rules governing interim measures, which, even prior to the reform, could be sought from a designated arbitrator (emergency arbitrator) before the arbitral tribunal was constituted. The first is the application of these rules to third parties to the extent that the President of the ICC Court considers that an arbitration agreement binds them: this may, for example, be a parent company or an affiliated party to which the asset to be seized has been transferred or which may engage in the conduct to be enjoined, and the President’s assessment may be based on arguments such as implied consent, direction and coordination within corporate groups, etc. The second is the possibility of obtaining an ex parte order preventing the addressee from frustrating the purpose of the application for interim relief (preliminary order), whilst giving the addressee the opportunity to defend themselves promptly after the order has been issued. Otherwise, the swift timetable for emergency arbitrationremains unchanged: two days from the filing of the application for interim relief for the appointment of the emergency arbitrator, and 15 days for the emergency arbitrator to issue an interim ruling, subject to any extensions granted by the President. 

Further changes introduced by the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules concern the integrity of the proceedings, in particular by providing, for the first time, an express duty of confidentiality on the part of arbitrators (Article 12(8)) and codifying two principles regarding disclosureby arbitrators: (i) where there is any uncertainty as to whether circumstances that might reasonably cast doubt on their independence or impartiality need to be disclosed, such disclosure must be made (Article 12(2)); and (ii) a disclosure, in itself, does not imply a lack of independence or impartiality.