The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules: A New Era

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has released its revised 2026 Arbitration Rules (the 2026 Rules), which entered into force on 1 June 2026. The 2026 Rules apply to any arbitration commenced on or after 1 June 2026, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. The revisions were driven by increased competition among arbitral institutions—illustrated by recent amendments to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules in August 2025 and the anticipated update to the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules.

The 2026 ICC Rules introduce several significant practical changes to the way ICC cases are conducted but are not a "wholesale" rewrite of the 2021 Rules. Rather, they seek to modernise the process to keep in step with the needs of parties. The reforms modernise several core aspects of ICC procedure while preserving hallmark features of ICC arbitration, including institutional scrutiny of awards and robust case management oversight by the ICC Court. This article examines each key reform in turn.

Abolition of Mandatory Terms of Reference

One of the most significant procedural reforms is the removal of mandatory Terms of Reference (ToR) in standard ICC arbitrations. Under the 2021 Rules, ICC tribunals were required to prepare ToR shortly after constitution of the tribunal—a process that defined the scope of the dispute and the procedural framework. That requirement has been eliminated, although tribunals maintain the discretion to establish them when useful.

Under the 2026 Rules, the tribunal must hold an initial case management conference (CMC) within 30 days of receiving the case file, meaning that the initial CMC replaces the ToR as the primary procedural milestone. Following the CMC, no new claims may be introduced without the tribunal's authorisation. Counsel should therefore ensure that all potential claims are identified and comprehensively assessed prior to the CMC to avoid the risk of their permanent exclusion from the arbitration. Requests and Answers may require more careful preparation, including early identification of claims, relief sought, relevant entities and individuals for disclosure purposes, and procedural issues to be addressed at the initial CMC.

Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP): A New Fast-Track Mechanism

The 2026 Rules introduce an entirely new opt-in mechanism: the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP). The HEAP apply on an opt-in basis. Unlike other expedited procedures, the HEAP do not depend on the amount in dispute, but rather on the parties’ agreement to proceed under this mechanism. The key features of the HEAP are:

• Rapid CMC: The tribunal must hold the initial CMC within seven days of receiving the file.
• Sole arbitrator: The dispute is decided by a sole arbitrator. If the parties do not jointly nominate the arbitrator within 20 days, the court appoints one that it considers suitable.
• Front-loaded pleadings: The Request for Arbitration (RFA) must include a full Statement of Claim, and the Answer must be submitted by the respondent within 30 days of the RFA and include a Statement of Defence and a Statement of Counterclaim, if any. Parties are also encouraged to submit the evidence on which they rely at this stage.
• No joinder or consolidation: Joinder of additional parties and consolidation of two or more arbitrations are not permitted.
• No time limit extensions: Unless agreed by the parties, no extensions of the time limits are permitted.
• Optional reasoned award: Parties may agree on an unreasoned award.
• Three-month award deadline: The tribunal is required to deliver a final award within three months of the initial CMC.

Parties will need to carefully consider if the HEAP are appropriate for their disputes—potentially ideal for disputes where time is of the essence and low-value disputes—and assess enforcement risk and the mandatory provisions of the arbitration law at the seat when considering whether to contract for an award without reasons.

Increased Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP) Threshold

The 2026 Rules revise the monetary threshold for automatic application of the Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP). The EPP Threshold Amount is: USD 2 million if the arbitration agreement was concluded on or after 1 March 2017 and before 1 January 2021; USD 3 million if the agreement was concluded on or after 1 January 2021 and before 1 June 2026; and USD 4 million if the agreement was concluded on or after 1 June 2026.

The pre-existing EPP are distinct from the new HEAP. While both procedures are designed to streamline the arbitration process, the HEAP provides an even more accelerated framework. For example, under the EPP, the CMC must be held within 15 days of the tribunal's receipt of the file, and the final award must be issued within six months. In contrast, under the HEAP, the CMC must take place within seven days and the final award must be issued within three months. Additionally, the EPP may apply automatically if the dispute falls within the relevant threshold (unless the parties opt out), while the HEAP apply only if all parties opt in.

Early Determination Mechanism

The 2026 Rules introduce a formal early determination procedure. While this procedure was described in the ICC 2021 Guidance Note, it was absent from the 2021 Rules. Per the revised Rules, a party may now apply for a ruling that a claim or defence is manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The tribunal has discretion to allow the application to proceed and to adopt appropriate procedural measures in consultation with the parties. This mechanism provides parties with a new tool to streamline proceedings and achieve time and cost efficiencies by disposing of unmeritorious claims or jurisdictional objections at an early stage. If applied judiciously, early determination may well become a valuable tool for combatting dilatory tactics and frivolous claims. However, such applications, if ultimately unsuccessful, may add additional time and costs, and in certain jurisdictions, losing parties may be able to seek annulment, or resist recognition and enforcement, of awards based on lack of due process arguments.

Expanded Scope of Emergency Arbitration

The 2026 Rules expand the scope of emergency arbitration in two important respects.

First, emergency arbitration proceedings may now be initiated not only against signatories and their successors, but also against any party where the ICC Court president is “satisfied, based on information in the application, that an arbitration agreement binding that party may exist.” Responding parties named in emergency arbitration applications will not have an opportunity to respond to the application and therefore now have an increased risk of being subject to urgent interim measures, even where they are not direct signatories to the arbitration agreement. The tribunal will later carry out a full jurisdictional analysis without being bound by the president's decision.

Second, a party may now request an ex parte preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the relief sought, which may be a critical tool in asset preservation or evidence protection scenarios. Once issued, the emergency arbitrator must promptly afford all other parties the opportunity to be heard and may modify or revoke the order based on subsequent submissions.

Strengthened Arbitrator Disclosure Framework

The 2026 Rules introduce meaningful changes to the provisions on arbitrator independence and impartiality, embedding key disclosure standards previously contained only in the ICC’s Guidance Note. The principal changes are:

• “When in doubt” principle codified: The 2026 Rules now confirm that any doubt about whether to disclose a potential conflict of interest should be resolved in favour of disclosure.
• Disclosure does not establish lack of independence: In an entirely new provision, the 2026 Rules assert that a disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality.
• Parties must submit entity lists: Parties must now submit lists of persons and entities they believe arbitrators should consider for disclosure purposes, along with an explanation of the reasons. While this requirement shifts some disclosure burden to the parties and reduces the risk of late-emerging conflicts, ultimate responsibility for disclosure remains with the arbitrator.
• Arbitrator confidentiality codified: Arbitrators are now expressly subject to a confidentiality obligation, covering all matters relating to the arbitration proceeding unless the information is in the public domain, the parties agree otherwise, applicable law requires disclosure, or disclosure is necessary to protect a legal right.

Importantly, the 2026 Rules stop short of imposing a default confidentiality regime on the parties—unlike the LCIA and SIAC Rules. Instead, the confidentiality of the proceedings remains a matter for party agreement or for determination by the tribunal.

Formal Regulation of Tribunal Secretaries

The 2026 Rules introduce a new provision formally regulating tribunal secretaries. Secretaries must satisfy the same independence and impartiality standards as arbitrators and execute a statement to that effect prior to appointment. Importantly, any financial arrangements for tribunal secretaries are governed exclusively through the tribunal. Direct fee arrangements between secretaries and parties are prohibited.

This codifies what was previously only addressed in a practice note. However, the Rules do not go on to codify who ultimately is responsible for paying the fees of a tribunal secretary: the parties or the arbitrator(s) whom they assist. The question as to whether secretary fees should be deducted from arbitrator fees or charged in addition remains a matter for each dispute.

Enhanced Award Scrutiny

The court's award scrutiny function has been broadened. The court will now consider the validity and enforceability of the award and the requirements of mandatory law at the place of the arbitration. The 2021 Rules referred only to “the requirements of mandatory law at the place of the arbitration”—the express reference to “validity and enforceability” is a new addition.

Revised Award Time Limits and Truncated Tribunals

The longstanding default six-month time limit for issuance of the final award (running from signature of the ToR) has been modified. Under the 2026 Rules, the president of the court can fix or extend the time limit for rendering the final award by reference to the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the tribunal. Time limits for issuing awards will now be tailored to each case, which offers the benefit of procedural flexibility but may make it harder for parties to plan for post-award activities.

Under the revised Rules, the ICC Court may now decide to proceed with a truncated tribunal “after the last hearing or the filing of the last substantive submissions, whichever is later,” rather than only after the closing of the proceedings. This change is designed to mitigate the risk of delay caused by the death, resignation, or removal of an arbitrator at a late stage of the proceedings, thereby preserving procedural efficiency and avoiding the need to revisit completed phases of the arbitration.

Digitalisation and Modernisation

The 2026 Rules make electronic communication the default mode of interaction with the ICC secretariat, reducing administrative friction and paper burden. Hard copy delivery remains available where a party requests confirmation of receipt or delivery for key filings.

Tribunals are permitted to sign awards electronically and/or in counterparts and may request the ICC secretariat to notify the award in paper or electronic format. Additionally, the tribunal may deliberate wherever it considers appropriate or in hybrid form or by videoconference, teleconference, or other form of electronic communication. The 2026 ICC Rules also grant tribunals broad discretion to conduct hearings not only in person or fully remotely but also in hybrid form, including without the parties’ consent, as long as they are consulted. This express discretion is new and codifies the post-pandemic shift toward remote proceedings.

Costs and Fee Adjustments

The 2026 Rules set out the applicable fees and costs of arbitration in a dedicated Schedule of Fees, enhancing transparency for users. Administrative expenses have been reduced for disputes valued at under USD 10 million, while targeted increases apply to larger value disputes. The secretary general now assumes responsibility for fixing advances on costs and overseeing most financial aspects of the arbitration, with the ICC Court retaining responsibility for the arbitrators’ fees and administrative expenses.

This administrative delegation may speed up cost-fixing but also concentrate decision-making authority in the secretariat.

Investment Protection and State-Related Disputes

The 2026 Rules appear to expand certain provisions relevant to investment-related disputes by adding references to arbitration agreements arising from an “investment protection law,” in addition to treaties. The arbitrator nationality restriction now also applies to arbitration agreements arising from investment protection law. There is a parallel change in Appendix IV, which excludes the Emergency Arbitrator Provisions where the arbitration agreement arises from a treaty or an investment protection law.

Conclusion

The 2026 Rules do not bring seismic change, but rather contain careful incremental changes based on experience since the adoption of the 2021 Rules, with the objective of allowing tribunals to resolve time-sensitive disputes more efficiently, deploy modern case management techniques to reduce time and costs, and align arbitral proceedings with today's technological capabilities. Taken together, the changes point towards faster, more flexible, and more tailored proceedings.

For more information or if you have any queries, please reach out to Matthew Williams, counsel at Crowell & Moring.