On 1 June 2026, a revised edition of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration (the "2026 Rules") came into force, marking the first comprehensive update since January 2021.

Heralded with the intention of enhancing "efficiency, clarity and usability", the 2026 Rules reinforce the ICC's commitment to assisting commercial parties by deploying modern methods of technology and a streamlined procedural approach.

The 2026 Rules apply to any arbitration commenced on or after 1 June 2026, unless the parties have agreed to submit to an earlier edition of the Rules.

What's new in the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules?

Terms of Reference no longer mandatory

One of the most significant procedural changes aimed at reducing formality and delay is the removal of the mandatory Terms of Reference.

Under the 2026 Rules, tribunals retain the discretion to establish Terms of Reference where appropriate. This approach draws on the experience of the Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP), under which Terms of Reference have not been mandatory since 2017, with fewer than 25 out of over 1,000 EPP tribunals opting to draw them up.

The new Rules focus instead on the initial case management conference (CMC) as the key procedural milestone for framing the dispute. This brings the ICC Rules into line with the rules of the other major international arbitral institutions.

Under Article 24 of the 2026 Rules, the CMC remains mandatory and must be held within 30 days of file transmission to the arbitral tribunal. The initial CMC now also serves as the cut-off point for the introduction of new claims without the authorisation of the arbitral tribunal (Article 25).

Arbitrator independence, impartiality and disclosure

The 2026 Rules introduce important clarifications to the existing disclosure framework for arbitrators, elevating into the Rules themselves principles which had previously appeared only in the ICC's Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration (the "Note").

Two key principles are now enshrined in Article 12:

  1. that any doubts a prospective arbitrator may have about whether to make a disclosure "shall be resolved in favour of disclosure" (Article 12(2)), and
  2. that a disclosure "does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality" (Article 12(4)).

The objective is to encourage prompt and full disclosure, whilst reassuring prospective arbitrators that disclosure alone should not be understood as an admission of conflict.

In addition, a new Article 12(5) introduces a requirement for proactive party engagement. Each party must, at the time of filing its respective Request, Answer or related filing, submit to the Secretariat a list of persons and entities which it believes the prospective arbitrators should consider, together with reasons.

This formalises a structured mechanism for identifying potential conflicts at an early stage (promoting efficiency and reducing a risk of issues being raised at a late stage), although the disclosure obligation remains with the arbitrator.

Expanded Expedited Procedure Provisions

The ICC's Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP) were introduced in 2017. The monetary threshold for the automatic application of the EPP has been increased to USD 4,000,000 for arbitrations agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. In 2025, 40% of ICC cases did not exceed this threshold,[1] meaning that many more cases will now fall within the EPP, allowing the ICC to deal with such claims efficiently, but also enabling parties to resolve disputes in time and cost proportionate to the dispute.

The core EPP framework otherwise remains unchanged: default appointment of a sole arbitrator, an award within six months, shorter procedural timelines, limits on submissions, and lower overall arbitration costs. Parties remain free to opt in or opt out of the EPP regardless of whether their claim falls within the automatic threshold, and the ICC notes that in practice numerous parties have chosen to opt in to EPP even where the amounts in dispute were in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

A new fast-track option: Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP)

Among the most notable procedural innovations in the 2026 Rules is the introduction of a new, opt-in Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (HEAP). Unlike the EPP, there is no automatic financial threshold to apply HEAP – it is an opt-in procedure intended for lower complexity commercial disputes or discrete issues (e.g. purchase price adjustments) where speed is of the essence.

So, what makes HEAP, highly expedited?

Firstly, a dispute will be decided by a sole arbitrator – there will be no three-person tribunal and the ICC Court does not retain any discretion to appoint a three-person tribunal. If the parties are unable to agree on the sole arbitrator within 20 days of the respondent receiving the Request and Statement of Claim, the Court will appoint an arbitrator.

Secondly, submissions are front-loaded from the outset: a Statement of Claim must be filed with the Request for Arbitration, and a Statement of Defence with the Answer. In addition, the arbitral tribunal may (after consulting the parties) impose limits on document production – for example, by not allowing requests for document production or by imposing limits in the number, length or scope of written submissions and written witness evidence.

Thirdly, the arbitral tribunal is required to issue its final award within three months of the date of the initial CMC (although subject to extension as with the standard procedure).

HEAP will no longer apply if, at any time during the proceedings the parties agree that they will no longer apply or the Court, on its own motion or on a party's or the tribunal's request and after consultation with the parties and the arbitral tribunal, decides so. This may be because the dispute is too complex or is otherwise unsuited to HEAP. If appropriate, the arbitral tribunal can remain in place.

Emergency arbitration: expanded scope

The 2026 Rules introduce important clarifications to the emergency arbitration (EA) provisions. Reflecting the evolution of practice across the 287 EA applications administered since 2012, Appendix IV of the Rules now expressly permits EA proceedings to be initiated against: (a) signatories to the arbitration agreement; (b) their successors; or (c) any party for which the President is satisfied, based on information in the Application, that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist.

The addition of the new language in (c) above ensures that access to urgent interim relief is not unduly curtailed in the context of complex corporate structures. It gives the President of the ICC Court the discretion to decide that EA provisions may apply to entities other than signatories to arbitration agreements or their successors.

Confidentiality

The 2026 Rules introduce Article 12(8), which clarifies that arbitrators have a duty to maintain confidentiality (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). As before, there is no default confidentiality obligation on the parties themselves, who are free to tailor the confidentiality provisions to meet the needs of their particular dispute or contract.

Other amendments introduced by the 2026 Rules

This article has focussed largely on how the 2026 Rules drive efficiency in ICC arbitration through the use of streamlined procedures. There are many more amendments that have been introduced by the 2026 Rules, some of which are substantial and others of which marginally update the existing position. Helpfully, the ICC has released a comparison document showing the changes that have been introduced.

Some of the key changes include:

  • Electronic communications: the 2026 Rules codify the use of electronic communications, for example mandating, where practicable, written electronic communications to the Secretariat (Article 3) and the electronic signature of Awards (Article 38). Although parties to arbitration have invariably been using electronic methods of communication for many years, this is now formalised and embedded in the 2026 Rules.
  • Early determination: the core provisions on early determination (which have long formed part of ICC practice but were previously only contained in the Note) have also been elevated into the 2026 Rules themselves (Article 30). These give parties the power to apply to the arbitral tribunal for the early determination of one or more claims or defences where they are manifestly without merit or outside of the tribunal's jurisdiction. The arbitral tribunal has discretion as to whether to allow the application to proceed and if they do allow it to proceed, it will adopt the procedural measures it considers appropriate, after consulting the parties. This move follows similar developments by institutions such as LCIA, which introduced an express power of early determination in its 2020 rules, and should remove any remaining doubt about an ICC tribunal's power to adopt a summary procedure.
  • Truncated tribunals: under Article 16(5), the ICC Court may now proceed with a truncated tribunal where an arbitrator has died or been removed after the last hearing or the filing of the last substantive submissions, whichever is later (previously, this was only available after the closing of proceedings).
  • Tribunal secretary: Article 44 now codifies the appointment of a tribunal secretary, which was formerly addressed in a practice note. The tribunal secretary must satisfy the same independence, impartiality and confidentiality requirements as arbitrators under the 2026 Rules.
  • Transparency of costs provisions: provisions also previously contained in the Note, such as the process for accepting payment from third parties, how arbitrators may request advances, and fees for tribunal secretaries, have been elevated into the Rules. Direct arrangements between the arbitral tribunal and the parties regarding the tribunal secretary's fees are now prohibited.

The practical impact of the 2026 Rules

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules represent a carefully calibrated set of reforms which build on more than a century of ICC institutional arbitration practice. For practitioners and parties, the most immediately impactful changes are the introduction of HEAP as a new fast-track mechanism delivering awards within three months and the removal of mandatory Terms of Reference.

Taken together, the reforms mark a clear institutional commitment to reducing time and cost while preserving the procedural integrity and flexibility that characterise ICC Arbitration. Users would be well advised to familiarise themselves with the updated provisions ahead of filing new cases.

Are the ICC Rules suitable for my contract?

Our international arbitration practitioners have wide-ranging experience advising on and operating all major arbitration rules. For help devising suitable dispute resolution provisions, or to talk about an existing dispute, please contact Gordon Bell or another member of our International Arbitration team.

Footnotes:

[1] Unveiling the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, part 3: Expedited Procedure Provisions and Emergency Arbitration - ICC - International Chamber of Commerce.