On 1 June 2026, the International Chamber of Commerce revised Rules of Arbitration entered into force, replacing the 2021 version. Described by the ICC itself as the most substantial update since 2012, the new rules touch virtually every stage of proceedings, from the moment a Request is filed to the moment an award is signed. For businesses operating under existing or future ICC arbitration clauses, the changes are not academic. They affect timing, procedure, costs, and the strategic options available when a dispute arises.
Why the ICC Revised Its Rules Now
The 2026 revision was not driven by a single crisis but by an accumulation of pressures. International arbitration has faced sustained criticism over cost and delay. Competing institutions including SIAC, HKIAC, and the LCIA have updated their own rules in recent years, sharpening competition for commercial cases. The ICC caseload reached 30,000 registered cases in December 2025, underscoring both its dominance and the scale of the challenge in maintaining quality and speed at volume.
The ICC stated priorities for the revision were efficiency, clarity, and usability. What emerged is a framework that retains ICC arbitration core strengths, including Court scrutiny of awards, global enforceability, and institutional credibility, while stripping away procedural features that had become sources of delay and frustration in practice. The result is a leaner, more flexible set of rules, better calibrated to the commercial realities of cross-border dispute resolution in 2026.
The End of Mandatory Terms of Reference
This is the structural change that will be most immediately felt by practitioners and parties alike. The Terms of Reference, long regarded as the procedural hallmark of ICC arbitration and distinguishing it from virtually every other institutional framework, are no longer mandatory under the 2026 Rules.
Under the 2021 Rules, the tribunal was required to draw up a Terms of Reference document shortly after receiving the file: a formal record of the parties, their claims, the relief sought, and the tribunal mandate. Procedural milestones were anchored to its signature or approval. In cases involving non-participating or obstructing parties, this requirement was a persistent source of delay.
The ICC own data from expedited proceedings, where Terms of Reference were never required, is telling: across more than a thousand expedited cases, fewer than a quarter of tribunals chose to draw them up voluntarily. That experience provided the institutional evidence needed to remove the requirement entirely from standard proceedings.
The procedural anchor of an ICC arbitration is no longer a formal jurisdiction-defining document, but the tribunal active case management through the initial Case Management Conference.
In place of the Terms of Reference, Article 24 of the 2026 Rules requires the tribunal to hold an initial Case Management Conference (CMC) within 30 days of receiving the file. This becomes the first mandatory procedural milestone and the moment from which subsequent procedural constraints run. Article 25 now links the cut-off for new claims to the CMC rather than to the Terms of Reference: no party may introduce new claims after the initial CMC without the tribunal authorisation.
It is worth noting that tribunals and parties retain full discretion to establish Terms of Reference where they consider it genuinely useful. The ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of ICC Arbitration specifically contemplates this possibility as a case management technique, noting that a ToR in this context would normally include a summary of the parties respective claims and relief sought, particulars concerning applicable procedural rules and a list of issues to be determined. If prepared under the 2026 Rules, such a document will not be transmitted to the Court. The change removes the obligation, not the option.
A New Tier of Speed: The Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure
The introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP), codified in Appendix VI of the 2026 Rules, is the most ambitious procedural innovation in the revision. It creates an entirely new tier of ICC proceedings, not a modification of the existing Expedited Procedure, but a distinct mechanism with its own timetable, structure, and logic.
Unlike the Expedited Procedure, which applies automatically below a monetary threshold, HEAP is entirely opt-in: it only applies when all parties expressly agree to it, and there is no monetary cap. According to the ICC Note, the parties agreement to apply HEAP would normally occur before the filing of the Request, either in the arbitration agreement or other written agreements. Parties may also agree to opt in after the commencement of proceedings, but if they do so, they must also agree on how any already-pending time limits should be modified. For practical certainty, building the opt-in into the arbitration clause itself is strongly recommended.
A further practical point addressed in the ICC Note: parties may wish to include their own threshold amount limiting the scope of HEAP application, for example restricting it to disputes below a certain value. There is no requirement to do so, but the flexibility exists and may be relevant for parties who want expedited resolution of smaller claims while preserving standard proceedings for high-value disputes arising from the same contract.
The HEAP timetable in practice
The ICC Court applies a reduced fee scale for HEAP proceedings. The arbitrator fees under HEAP are lower than under general scales, which is a relevant cost consideration for parties weighing whether to opt in. The Court may increase fees where the sole arbitrator has conducted the arbitration expeditiously, and may reduce them where the award is delayed.
The Expedited Procedure: A Higher Threshold
The existing Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP) have been updated. The threshold for automatic application has been raised from US$3 million to US$4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. This captures a wider range of commercial disputes within the expedited framework by default, meaning more cases will involve a sole arbitrator, a compressed procedural calendar, and a six-month target for the final award.
Under the EPP, the amount in dispute for threshold purposes includes all quantified claims, counterclaims and crossclaims, but not claims for interest or costs. Cases involving declaratory or non-monetary claims whose value cannot be estimated will generally fall outside the EPP, unless the non-monetary claims merely support a monetary claim or do not add significantly to the dispute complexity. Parties wishing to avoid EPP application should opt out expressly in the arbitration clause; a reference to three arbitrators is not sufficient on its own to constitute a valid opt-out.
Comparing the 2021 and 2026 Rules: Key Changes at a Glance
The table below sets out the most practically significant changes between the two versions of the Rules.
| Topic | 2021 Rules | 2026 Rules |
|---|---|---|
| Terms of Reference Removed |
Mandatory (Art. 23). Tribunal must draw up and sign ToR within 30 days of file transmission. New claims cut off after ToR approval. | No longer mandatory. Tribunal retains discretion to draw up ToR if useful. Procedural anchor shifts to initial CMC (Art. 24). New claims cut off after initial CMC (Art. 25). |
| Highly Expedited Procedure New |
No equivalent. Only standard and expedited tracks available. | New opt-in track (Appendix VI). Award within 3 months of CMC. Combined Request and Statement of Claim. Sole arbitrator. No joinder or consolidation. Strict time limits; no unilateral extension. Reduced fee scale. |
| Expedited Procedure Threshold Revised |
US$3 million for agreements concluded on or after 1 January 2021. | US$4 million for agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. Broader default scope; opt-out must be express and specific. |
| Early Determination New |
No express rule. Implied power only; relied on by relatively few tribunals. | Express power in Art. 30. Any party may apply for early dismissal of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or outside the tribunal jurisdiction. Decision by order or award depending on outcome. |
| Arbitrator Disclosure Revised |
Duty to disclose; standard not expressly addressed in the Rules (addressed in the Note to Parties). | Art. 12(2): any doubt must be resolved in favour of disclosure. Art. 12(4): disclosure does not itself establish a lack of independence or impartiality. Both principles elevated from the Note into the Rules. |
| Party Disclosure Obligations New |
No equivalent obligation on parties to provide conflict-check information. | Art. 12(5): each party must submit a list of persons and entities for disclosure purposes when filing the Request, Answer, or Request for Joinder. Secretariat will combine lists and provide to prospective arbitrators. |
| Arbitrator Confidentiality New |
No express confidentiality obligation on arbitrators in the Rules. | Art. 12(8): arbitrators are expressly bound to keep all matters relating to the arbitration confidential, subject to narrow exceptions. |
| Tribunal Secretaries New |
No dedicated provision in the Rules. Practice governed by the Note to Parties only. | Art. 44: express framework. Parties must be consulted before appointment. Secretaries subject to same standards as arbitrators. Only reasonable expenses recoverable; no separate fee arrangements permitted. |
| Emergency Arbitrator Scope Revised |
Available to signatories and successors only. | Appendix IV, Art. 1(2)(c): extended to any party for which the ICC President is satisfied that a binding arbitration agreement may exist, including non-signatories in complex structures. |
| Emergency Preliminary Orders New |
No equivalent mechanism. | Appendix IV, Art. 7: Preliminary Orders available on an ex parte basis, directing a party not to frustrate the emergency application. All other parties must be heard promptly after. |
| Award Time Limit Revised |
Default six-month period from signature of Terms of Reference; routinely extended by the Court in practice. | Art. 34: no default time limit. The ICC Court President sets and adjusts the time limit, taking into account the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the tribunal. |
| Electronic Communications Revised |
Electronic communication recognised but not the express default. | Arts. 3(1) and 3(2): electronic communication is the default. Hard copies required only when specifically requested or where electronic transmission is not practicable. |
Early Determination: An Express Power for Dismissing Weak Claims
Article 30 of the 2026 Rules codifies what had previously been only an implied and contested power of ICC tribunals: the ability to dispose of claims or defences at an early stage, without a full merits hearing, on the basis that they are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal jurisdiction.
The ICC Note clarifies that an early determination application is expected to be made as promptly as possible after the filing of the relevant claims or defences. The tribunal decides whether to allow the application to proceed, and if it does, must act promptly. Importantly, where the tribunal accepts the application and finally disposes of a claim or defence, the decision must take the form of an award, not a procedural order. Where the application is rejected, a procedural order suffices. The Court will scrutinise any award made on an early determination application, typically within one week of receipt, which is faster than standard scrutiny.
This reform brings ICC arbitration into closer alignment with SIAC (Rule 47), HKIAC (Article 43), and LCIA (Article 22(viii)) Rules, all of which already contained express early determination mechanisms. Parties should be aware that while the power is now express, the threshold remains high: applications based on debatable points of law or fact are unlikely to succeed and may attract adverse costs awards.
Stronger Safeguards: Disclosure, Confidentiality, and Tribunal Secretaries
Several reforms in the 2026 Rules address concerns about transparency and procedural integrity that have become more pressing as international arbitration has grown in scale and complexity.
Disclosure: a more proactive framework
Article 12(2) now expressly provides that any doubt as to whether a disclosure should be made must be resolved in favour of disclosure. Article 12(4) confirms that making a disclosure does not itself establish a lack of independence or impartiality. These two principles operated together in the Note to Parties under the 2021 Rules, but elevating them to the Rules themselves gives them greater weight and clarity.
The ICC Note provides a detailed list of circumstances an arbitrator should consider when assessing what to disclose, covering relationships with parties and their affiliates, economic interests in the dispute, prior appointments in related cases, membership of the same barristers chambers as another arbitrator or counsel, and relationships with witnesses or experts. The standard is deliberately broad. An arbitrator is also considered to bear the identity of their law firm for these purposes, meaning firm-level relationships trigger the same disclosure obligations as personal ones.
Equally significant is the new obligation on parties themselves. Article 12(5) requires each party, at the point of filing its Request, Answer, or Request for Joinder, to submit a list of persons and entities that prospective arbitrators should consider for disclosure purposes. The Secretariat will combine the lists submitted by all parties and provide the combined list to prospective arbitrators. The Secretariat may also add certain entities omitted from the parties lists, such as signatories to the arbitration agreement and affiliates mentioned in submissions. This mechanism shifts part of the responsibility for conflict identification to the parties, where it more logically belongs in disputes involving complex group structures, private equity sponsors, litigation funders, and insurers.
Arbitrator confidentiality: codified for the first time
Article 12(8) introduces, for the first time in the Rules, an express confidentiality obligation binding on arbitrators. The 2026 Rules do not, however, impose a default confidentiality obligation on the parties themselves. That remains a matter for party agreement or for determination by the tribunal under Article 23(3). In practice, confidentiality is typically addressed as part of Procedural Order No. 1, and the ICC Note confirms that the ICC Model Data Protection Clause for Procedural Order One provides additional guidance in this regard.
Tribunal secretaries: an express regulatory framework
Article 44 provides a dedicated set of rules governing tribunal secretaries for the first time. The ICC Note sets out in considerable detail what a tribunal secretary may and may not do. Permitted tasks include transmitting documents, organising files and hearings, drafting correspondence on behalf of the tribunal, preparing factual portions of awards such as procedural summaries and chronologies of facts, attending hearings and taking notes, conducting legal research, and proofreading citations and cross-references. What a secretary may not do is exercise any decision-making function or act in a way that prevents direct communication between the arbitrators, between the tribunal and the parties, or between the tribunal and the Secretariat.
On costs, the position is clear: only the tribunal secretary reasonable and justified disbursements, such as travel and accommodation for hearings, are recoverable from the parties. No separate remuneration is payable by the parties. The tribunal pays any fees owed to the secretary from within the tribunal own fee allocation. Direct arrangements between the tribunal and the parties on secretary remuneration are strictly prohibited.
Emergency Arbitration: Broader Reach, Faster Orders
The emergency arbitrator mechanism has been in place since 2012 and has processed more than 287 applications. The 2026 Rules introduce two targeted reforms.
First, the scope of application is expanded. Under the 2021 Rules, emergency arbitration was available only to signatories and their successors. Article 1(2)(c) of Appendix IV now extends the mechanism to any party for whom the ICC President is satisfied, based on the information in the application, that a binding arbitration agreement may exist. This responds to the reality of modern commercial structures, where disputes routinely involve affiliates, guarantors, or other non-signatories connected to the underlying transaction.
Second, Article 7 of Appendix IV introduces Preliminary Orders. A party may request an order on an ex parte basis directing the counterparty not to frustrate the purpose of the emergency application. This addresses a genuine practical gap: where advance notice would give the opposing party the opportunity to dissipate assets, destroy evidence, or transfer funds, the previous framework offered no protection. Once the Preliminary Order is granted, the Secretariat or emergency arbitrator must immediately transmit the request to all other parties, who must then be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The emergency arbitrator retains the power to modify the order in light of those submissions.
Practical note: parties intending to file an emergency application are encouraged by the ICC to inform the Secretariat in advance of submitting the application. If the application precedes the Request for Arbitration, it should be filed by email to emergencyarbitrator@iccwbo.org. The President must appoint the emergency arbitrator normally within two days of receipt, and the Order must be issued within 15 days of the file being transmitted.
What This Means for Businesses: Practical Steps
- Review existing ICC arbitration clauses. The 2026 Rules apply to arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2026. If your agreements were signed before that date and contain ICC arbitration clauses, check whether they specify a version of the Rules. If not, the 2026 Rules will most likely apply to any dispute filed now. A short legal review of your existing contracts will confirm the position.
- Consider opting into HEAP for appropriate contracts. For standard commercial agreements where disputes are likely to be factually contained, the Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure offers genuine speed and cost advantages. This requires an express opt-in and should be included in the arbitration clause itself. A threshold amount limiting HEAP to lower-value disputes under the same contract can also be agreed.
- Check whether your dispute falls within the new EPP threshold. If your contract was concluded on or after 1 June 2026 and involves a claim up to US$4 million, the Expedited Procedure will most likely apply automatically. If you want to avoid it, the opt-out must be express and specific in the clause; a reference to three arbitrators alone is not sufficient.
- Prepare party disclosure lists before filing. Article 12(5) requires each party to submit a list of persons and entities relevant to conflict checks at the time of filing the Request, Answer, or Request for Joinder. Assembling this in advance, covering group companies, third-party funders, insurers, key witnesses and affiliates, avoids delays at the outset and reduces the risk of undisclosed relationships causing problems later.
- Consider a sealed offer strategy early. The 2026 Rules and the ICC Note confirm the Secretariat will assist parties in placing unaccepted settlement offers before the tribunal after all liability and quantum issues are resolved. Offers marked "without prejudice save as to costs" can have a material impact on costs allocation. Discussing this possibility with counsel at the outset, and including the mechanism in Procedural Order No. 1, is good practice.
- Seek legal advice before making contact with the counterparty. The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference and the linking of the new claims cut-off to the initial CMC makes the period between filing and the first CMC strategically important. Communications during this window, as well as the scope of claims in the Request, can have lasting procedural consequences.