Effective 1 June 2026, the International Chamber of Commerce has published an update to its Arbitration Rules 

On 1 June 2026 the ICC published its revised Arbitration Rules (2026 Rules) applying to all arbitrations commenced on or after that date unless the parties agreed to an earlier version. Last revised five years ago, the Rules follow a consultation inviting feedback from practitioners and the wider arbitration community. The most substantial revision in recent years, they reflect a clear institutional focus on efficiency, transparency, flexibility, and new technologies. Headline changes include abolishing mandatory Terms of Reference, new early determination procedures and the Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (HEAP), expanded emergency arbitration provisions, and a heightened focus on arbitrator independence and impartiality.

We examine the principal reforms and their practical implications for parties, counsel, and arbitral tribunals.

Arbitrator independence, impartiality, and disclosure

The 2026 Rules strengthen arbitrator independence and impartiality. Article 12(5) requires parties to provide a list of relevant persons and entities – such as funders, beneficial owners, and other connected parties – that prospective arbitrators and arbitrators should consider when assessing potential conflicts of interest with reasons, when filing their Request, Answer, Request for Joinder, Answer to a Request for Joinder, or request for an extension of time to submit an Answer. Two principles from the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of ICC Arbitration, the guidance document that accompanies the 2026 Rules, are codified: under Article 12(2), any doubt about whether to disclose must be resolved in favour of disclosure; and under Article 12(4), a disclosure does not by itself establish a lack of independence or impartiality.

Tribunal secretaries must now meet the same independence, impartiality, and confidentiality standards as arbitrators and sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality, and independence before appointment. Prospective arbitrators' expertise and experience are also now expressly considered in appointments.

Confidentiality

The ICC considered but ultimately rejected a default confidentiality regime, so parties wanting confidentiality must still agree to it or seek a confidentiality order. However, Article 12(8) now requires arbitrators to keep all matters relating to the arbitration confidential, unless in the public domain, agreed by the parties, required by law, or necessary to protect a legal right or comply with disclosure obligations. Article 23(3) confirms the tribunal's power, at a party's request, to make confidentiality orders and protect trade secrets and confidential information.

Departure from mandatory Terms of Reference

A key change is removing the obligation for tribunals to draw up Terms of Reference (ToR). A hallmark of ICC arbitration since the 1955 Rules, the ToR confirmed the parties' consent to arbitrate, summarised the claims and relief sought, and defined the procedural framework. In practice, many users considered the exercise to be disproportionate to its value. 

Their abolition does not leave a procedural vacuum. The 2026 Rules instead emphasise the initial Case Management Conference (CMC) in setting the procedural measures to be adopted (Article 24). Under Article 25, no party may introduce new claims after the CMC without the tribunal's authorisation, and the CMC must be held within 30 days of transmission of the file. This places greater weight on the Request for Arbitration and Answer as the primary vehicles for communicating claims and defences, so parties should expect to invest more heavily in their initial submissions.

The 2026 Rules do not prohibit ToR altogether: parties may still adopt them where useful, and tribunals retain discretion to use them as a case management tool.

Early determination

Article 30 introduces an express early determination mechanism, letting any party apply for summary disposal of one or more claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. Although ad hoc summary procedures were not unknown, the absence of a formal rule left parties without a reliable procedural basis. 

The procedure operates in two steps: the tribunal first decides whether to allow the application to proceed and, if so, considers its merits. This gateway serves as a filter, to ensure that applications are well-founded before the tribunal reviews the merits. Parties should file promptly and explain clearly why the claim or defence is manifestly without merit or outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

This aligns ICC arbitration with a growing trend across major institutions, including the LCIA, ICSID, SIAC, and HKIAC, which have adopted analogous summary or early determination mechanisms.

Expanded emergency arbitration

The 2026 Rules enhance the Emergency Arbitrator (EA) provisions. First, their scope is broadened: whereas the 2021 Rules offered emergency arbitration only to signatories of the arbitration agreement or their successors, the 2026 Rules extend it to any party for which the President is satisfied, on the information in the Application, that a binding arbitration agreement may exist. This is a prima facie assessment only and does not prejudge the tribunal's final determination on jurisdiction.

Second, emergency arbitrators may now issue preliminary orders (including on an ex parte basis) to prevent a party from frustrating the application's purpose, addressing situations such as asset dissipation or destruction of evidence where notice could undermine the relief sought. Where such an order is granted, the arbitrator must immediately give the other parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard and retains the power to modify or revoke it.

Third, the EA provisions now expressly do not apply where the arbitration agreement arises from an investment protection law, in addition to investment treaties.

These changes strengthen emergency arbitration and bring it closer to the interim relief available before national courts.

The Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (HEAP)

A significant change is the Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure set out in Appendix VI. HEAP is strictly opt-in, with no automatic application or threshold amount. It requires the tribunal to render its final award within three months of the initial CMC, a window covering drafting, scrutiny, and notification.

HEAP is designed for disputes where the issues are narrow or straightforward and require swift resolution. Key features include a sole arbitrator, a possible documents-only procedure without hearings, compressed timelines, front-loaded submissions, and a prohibition on joinder and consolidation. Parties may also agree to an award without reasons, though the ICC cautions this may create grounds to challenge enforcement in some jurisdictions.

HEAP complements the existing Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP), first introduced in 2017 and now updated. The threshold for expedited application has risen to USD 4 million for agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026, with prior thresholds still applying to earlier agreements. Parties remain free to opt in or out regardless of the threshold.

A new approach to the time limit for awards

The longstanding six-month default time limit for final awards, previously running from the ToR, has been replaced. Under Article 34, the President of the Court may fix and, if necessary, extend the time limit, taking into account the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the tribunal. As soon as possible after the last hearing, the tribunal must also tell the Secretariat and the parties when it intends to submit its draft award for scrutiny. While the previous regime routinely saw extensions granted, this change introduces greater institutional oversight and may in practice result in stricter time management.

Other notable reforms

• The ICC now serves documents electronically by default, awards may be signed electronically after consultation with the parties, and virtual tribunal deliberations are expressly permitted by videoconference, hybrid, or other electronic means.
• Once the tribunal is constituted, an additional party may be joined with its consent, departing from the 2021 Rules which required the consent of all parties or a tribunal decision.
• Parties now have 45 days (up from 30 days) to apply to correct awards, though they should note how this may interact with shorter time limits for challenging or setting aside awards under national law.
• A new Schedule of Fees reduces costs for arbitrations below USD 10 million and adjusts them upward for larger disputes. Where an arbitration follows ICC mediation, half of the mediation's administrative expenses are credited towards the arbitrations.
• If the parties fail to appoint arbitrators on time, the ICC Court has the power to directly appoint them to avoid delay and ensure neutrality, rather than relying on proposals from national committees. In addition, where the arbitration agreement arises from a treaty or investment protection law, arbitrators many not share the nationality of any party, unless the parties agree otherwise.
• The case management techniques formerly in Appendix IV have been removed, though Article 23(2) confirms tribunals may adopt techniques described in the Secretariat's guidance notes.

Final thoughts 

The 2026 Rules mark a welcome modernisation. By leaving confidentiality to the parties, the ICC recognises that a single approach does not suit all commercial contexts.

They also respond to concerns around cost and delay. Removing mandatory ToR reduces expense and shifts focus to the first CMC, requiring parties to set out their cases fully early on. Article 30 codifies early determination, setting a high threshold that favours clear legal issues.

In expedited procedures, HEAP is the key innovation, aiming for an award within three months of the first CMC. Parties may also agree to receive an award without reasons, though this remains optional. Expanded emergency arbitration powers, including ex parte orders, bring ICC practice closer to national courts, though their impact will depend on how they are used.

Overall, the Rules offer greater procedural flexibility and reflect a broader institutional focus on efficiency. Their practical impact will become clearer over time as they are applied.

For further information, alongside the 2026 Rules, the ICC has published several resources, including a comparison of the 2026 and 2021 Rules and an explanation of the changes it considers most significant.

With thanks to Ivana Mensah, Trainee Secondee, for co-authoring this article.