12 minute read | May.26.2026
On 1 June 2026, the International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) revised Arbitration Rules (ICC Rules 2026), as published on 22 May 2026 will come into effect and will apply to all Requests for Arbitration filed on or after this date. This alert summarises the key changes to the new ICC Rules 2026, which promise to enhance efficiency and clarity in a constantly evolving arbitration landscape. The revision introduces new procedures and streamlines existing ones, particularly in the early stages of arbitrations, while also aiming to preserve flexibility and procedural integrity, especially regarding the selection of arbitrators and the ability to tailor proceedings to the diverse needs of users worldwide.
One of the major changes introduced by the ICC Rules 2026 is the removal of the long-standing requirement for Terms of Reference. Instead, the (initial) case management conference followed by Procedural Order No. 1 becomes the key instrument to structure and streamline the arbitration (Article 24 (1), ICC Rules 2026). Tribunals will now have discretion to request terms of references only where appropriate as part of Procedural Order No. 1.
Under the prior ICC Rules 2021, Terms of Reference constituted a mandatory procedural step for all regular proceedings, pursuant to which, within thirty days of the tribunal’s constitution, the parties and the tribunal were required to prepare a document setting out, inter alia, each party’s claims and defences, the issues to be resolved, and the applicable rules (Article 23, ICC Rules 2021). Without the Terms of Reference, proceedings could not formally advance. Whie this mechanism clarified the scope of the dispute, it has been frequently criticised for introducing unnecessary cost, delay and rigidity at an early stage, particularly in straightforward matters, and considering that claims typically evolve over the course of proceedings as new evidence comes to light.
By making the Terms of Reference optional, the ICC aims to retain their clarifying benefits in complex or multi-party disputes, while avoiding unnecessary front-end costs and delays in simpler cases.
The ICC Rules 2026 increase the threshold for the automatic application of expedited proceedings from USD 3 million to USD 4 million (Article 1 of Appendix V, ICC Rules 2026). Unless parties expressly opt out, the Expedited Procedure Provisions will apply where the amount in dispute is under USD 4 million and the parties agree to their application (Article 1 (2) of Appendix V, ICC Rules 2026).
This regime is intended to streamline arbitration and reduce legal costs in lower-value disputes. The automatic application of the Expedited Procedure limits the number, deadlines and scope of the parties’ submissions. It also reduces the cost of party-appointed experts and grants the tribunal broader discretion to limit consistently costly document production procedures. The increased threshold to USD 4 million largely reflects inflation and rising dispute values, keeping a similar proportion of cases eligible for the streamlined process as previously qualified under the ICC Rules 2021.
In addition to the pre-existing expedited procedure, the ICC Rules 2026 introduce a Highly Expedited Procedure which parties can expressly opt into (Article 33, ICC Rules 2026), and is designed to deliver a final award within three months from commencement of proceedings. The Highly Expedited Procedure is intended for straightforward cases where urgency is paramount and prolonged uncertainty would cause significant harm. Under this format, parties are required to present their entire factual and evidentiary case at the outset (i.e., arbitrators have the powers (i) not to allow document production and (ii) limit the number of submissions per party), enabling the tribunal to proceed without delay. A sole arbitrator, appointed within twenty days, will conduct the Highly Expedited Procedure. The Secretary‑General of the ICC will carry out an initial screening, and each stage of the arbitration will be subject to strictly reduced time limits. Consolidation with other proceedings and the joinder of additional parties are excluded to avoid procedural complications. The parties may also agree on an arbitral award without reasoning. However, whether parties will do so in practice remains uncertain, especially since a reasoned award is required for enforcement proceedings in most jurisdictions.
The ICC Rules 2026 expressly grant tribunals the power to summarily dispose of claims upon request. This applies where such claims are ‘manifestly without merit’ or ‘manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction’ (Article 30, ICC Rules 2026). Under the ICC Rules 2021, this power existed in practice as part of the tribunal’s general authority in conducting the proceedings, but there was no express procedure for doing so; there was only guidance in this respect provided in the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals (2017). By formalising summary disposition, the ICC potentially provides tribunals with a clear procedure to address and eliminate manifestly unmeritorious claims at an early stage, saving significant time and costs for all parties involved. In this regard, the ICC follows, inter alia, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), both of which added express summary dispositions in recent revisions of their respective arbitration rules.
Parties may perceive the new express summary dismissal procedure as an opportunity to pursue early dismissal, even in cases where their claims may not substantively meet the threshold for such relief. This could inadvertently increase procedural steps and costs, underscoring the importance of counsel setting clear expectations with their clients around the scope and applicability of summary dismissal. From a tribunal’s perspective, it may be difficult to determine whether a claim is ‘manifestly’ without merit or outside its jurisdiction. Summary dispositions are, by their very nature, granted at an early stage of the proceedings and, thus, on a limited factual basis. However, tribunals may be reluctant to grant summary dismissal on the basis of the minimal information available at such an early stage of proceedings for due process concerns. To alleviate such concerns, tribunals may ask for additional submissions and evidence, which could essentially turn the summary dismissal process into a compressed merits proceeding. This could lead to increased front-end costs and additional delays.
Against this background, it remains to be seen whether the ICC Rules 2026 will in fact increase the number of applications for summary dispositions. Other institutions such as the LCIA and the SIAC have reported very small numbers of applications since formalising the procedure for summary dispositions in their respective rules.
The ICC Rules 2026 remove the (almost never enforced in practice) six-month time limit for rendering an arbitral award pursuant to Article 31 of the ICC Rules 2021. Instead, the President of the ICC Court will now set a bespoke time limit for each case (Article 34, ICC Rules 2026). This revision is a response to the practical reality that the majority of arbitral awards are not rendered within six months. As there was no real consequence for rendering an award after six months, this prior rule was perceived as largely meaningless. Pursuant to the new rule, the ICC Court will determine the timing for rendering an award on a case‑by‑case basis, considering the procedural timetable, which may be extended upon a reasoned request from the tribunal. As such, this revision may provide parties with a more realistic timeframe within which they can expect an award to be rendered (as opposed to some unknown date in the future), increasing clarity and certainty for all those involved.
As is highly topical in the arbitration arena at the moment, the ICC Rules 2026 seek to ensure that any potential conflicts of interest that an arbitrator may have are disclosed as early in the proceedings as possible (ideally prior to their appointment), preventing costly and time-consuming arbitrator challenges at later stages of proceedings.
Accordingly, the ICC Rules 2026 introduce a new requirement that each party must submit to the ICC Secretariat a list of any persons and entities it considers prospective arbitrators should consider when assessing their independence and impartiality (Article 12 (5) and (6), ICC Rules 2026). The parties must now also disclose any third-party funding for the purposes of identifying potential conflicts of interest. The existence of third-party funding may lead to more security for costs applications, as parties and tribunals may view it as evidence of a claimant’s potential lack of resources. This list is designed to help prospective arbitrators identify possible conflicts of interest both during nomination and throughout the arbitration process.
There is a risk that parties may use this new rule to disrupt the arbitrator appointment process, for example, by submitting lengthy lists to delay conflict checks or by strategically including certain entities to disqualify specific arbitrators. To address this, the ICC now requires parties to expressly justify the inclusion of non-parties on the conflict list. While this measure adds some administrative burden for both the ICC and the parties, it is intended to promote greater transparency in arbitrator selection and protect the integrity of the proceedings.
There remains no general duty of confidence in the proceedings (as opposed to the practical privacy afforded by the arbitral process). However, the ICC Rules 2026 introduce an explicit duty of confidentiality for arbitrators (Article 12 (8), ICC Rules 2026), covering all aspects of the proceedings, subject to limited exceptions. Codifying this duty strengthens procedural integrity and assures parties that sensitive information, particularly in disputes involving trade secrets or strategic commercial data, will be protected. This change aligns the ICC Rules 2026 with best practices in international arbitration and reinforces trust in the arbitral process.
Perhaps most controversially, the ICC Rules 2026 also expand the powers of the Emergency Arbitrator, permitting them to grant ex parte orders to prevent a party from taking steps that could frustrate the relief sought (Article 7 of Appendix IV, ICC Rules 2026). Under the ICC Rules 2021, emergency arbitrators could only grant urgent interim measures on notice after hearing both parties, save for very limited exceptions. The ICC Rules 2026 now permit immediate orders to be made without prior notice to the counter-party, with an opportunity for that party to be heard and for the order to be confirmed, modified, or revoked after the fact. This change is aimed at increasing the efficiency of interim relief in situations where any delay could render it meaningless, offering stronger protection in high‑risk scenarios. With this revision, the ICC follows the SIAC, which introduced ex parte orders in the 2025 revision of its arbitration rules, as well as many domestic court procedures. Whether such an order could be enforced outside of the arbitration itself is an open question in most jurisdictions.
The ICC Rules 2026 expressly recognise the ever-increasing role and use of administrative secretaries (Article 44, ICC Rules 2026) and impose independence, impartiality and confidentiality obligations equivalent to those of arbitrators on them. Previously, including in the ICC Rules 2021, their role was not regulated and only addressed through non-binding practice notes or guidelines. This formal inclusion increases transparency and ensures consistent standards for their appointment and conduct (such as their scope of work), as well as providing reassurance to parties that assistance within tribunals will meet the same professional obligations as arbitrators themselves (e.g., being free of conflicts of interest).
The ICC Rules 2026 introduce provisions allowing proceedings to continue with only two arbitrators if one dies or is removed after the final hearings or submissions (Article 16 (5) ICC Rules 2026). Under the ICC Rules 2021, such situations generally required the appointment of a replacement arbitrator, which caused delays and additional costs even when the case was already near conclusion. This new regime prevents disruption by enabling the remaining arbitrators to proceed to an award, safeguarding procedural efficiency and avoiding unnecessary expense.
Electronic communication with the Secretariat will become the default under the ICC Rules 2026 (Article 3 (1) ICC Rules 2026). Previously, while email and electronic filing were often used in practice, this was not the default method of correspondence. Codifying email and electronic filing as the default method reflects current practice, reduces reliance on physical delivery, and facilitates faster and more accessible exchanges between parties, arbitrators, and the Secretariat.
Removing the prior default requirement for physical “wet” signatures, the ICC Rules 2026 permit awards to be signed electronically and/or in counterparts, with delivery either electronically or in hard copy (Article 38 (1) ICC Rules 2026), therefore aligning the rules with modern digital practice, making it easier for tribunals to finalise awards without logistical delays.
A new Schedule of Fees is introduced under the ICC Rules 2026. Under the ICC Rules 2021, costs and fees were set out in appendices but lacked a consolidated schedule for quick reference. The new schedule enhances transparency by clearly outlining applicable charges and calculation methods, enabling parties to better anticipate financial commitments and supporting efficient cost management throughout proceedings.
The ICC Rules 2026 are not a dramatic overhaul of the prior rules per se; rather they mark a shift in tone and focus of the ICC. Their direction is clear, they are seeking to reflect what today’s users of commercial arbitration desire: a decisive and procedurally efficient method of dispute resolution. The revisions streamline the early stages of proceedings, give tribunals more authority, and expressly provide for an expedited procedure. However, at the same time, the revisions may facilitate additional opportunistic applications by the parties (on summary determination and security for costs) which would increase the complexity, cost and duration of proceedings. In any event, whether the ICC Rules 2026 will deliver in practice will depend on how readily parties and tribunals adapt to the changes and the ICC’s broader shift from tradition towards efficiency-driven arbitration.