The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules: What's New and Why It Matters

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules: What's New and Why It Matters

1. Today, the new ICC Arbitration Rules come into effect. Released on 22 May 2026, the 2026 Arbitration Rules (the ‘2026 Rules’) will apply to any arbitration commenced on or after 1 June 2026, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.[1]

2. This article highlights the key changes introduced by the 2026 Rules and their practical implications for parties. It is the first in a series of blog posts that will examine the new Rules in greater detail.

   Why Revise the Rules?

3. 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, following the consultation launched in March 2026.

4. In preparing the 2026 Rules, the ICC undertook extensive consultations with the international arbitral community, including its Commission on Arbitration and ADR, and its network of national committees.[2] The resulting text is calibrated around three core priorities – efficiency, clarity, and usability— while building on the ICC’s expanding caseload, which reached the milestone of 30,000 registered cases in December 2025.[3]

   Terms of Reference: No Longer a Mandatory Step (Article 24)

5. One of the most significant changes is that Terms of Reference (‘ToR’) are no longer mandatory. While the ToR have long been a distinctive hallmark of ICC arbitration—setting it apart from other institutional frameworks—their practical value has increasingly been questioned. This is reinforced by the positive experience under the Expedited Rules, which do not require ToR.[4] In practice, the process of defining the scope of the dispute or agreeing on a list of issues often proved time-consuming, resulting in a document that is frequently shelved shortly after signing – overtaken to large degree by the tribunal’s procedural directions.  The primary practical function of ToR remains circumscribing permissible claims and counterclaims, which according to the ICC Rules until this revision cannot be supplemented without permission from the arbitral tribunal.

6. Tribunals retain discretion to adopt ToR where they consider them genuinely useful as a case management tool. However, the emphasis now shifts to the first Case Management Conference (‘CMC’) as the central procedural milestone, aligning the ICC Rules more closely with other institutional rules. The cut-off for introducing new claims or counterclaims without the Tribunal’s leave is now tied to the first CMC (at which Terms of Reference are normally finalised), rather than the signature of the ToR. Parties will therefore still need to consider the full scope of their claims and defences at an early stage, ahead of this first procedural juncture.

   Confidentiality: Arbitrators Now Expressly Bound (Article 12)

7. The 2026 Rules introduce, for the first time, an express obligation of confidentiality binding on arbitrators (Article 12(8)). Notably, however, the 2026 Rules stop short of imposing a default confidentiality regime on the parties — unlike the LCIA and SIAC Rules.[5] Instead, the confidentiality of the proceedings 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 the procedural framework at the beginning of an arbitration.

   Arbitrator Disclosure: A More Proactive Framework (Article 12)

8. The 2026 Rules strengthen the disclosure framework by codifying two principles that previously only appeared in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals.[6] First, any doubt as to whether a disclosure should be made must be resolved in favour of disclosure (Article 12(2)). Second, a disclosure does not, in itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality (Article 12(4)). These principles operate in tandem—encouraging full and timely disclosure while reassuring arbitrators that transparency will not be treated as evidence of a conflict.

9. In addition, the Rules now introduce a mandatory procedural step requiring each party to submit to the Secretariat a list of persons and entities that prospective arbitrators should consider for disclosure purposes, together with the reasons for their inclusion (Article 12(5)). This requirement aligns the Rules more closely with prevailing international arbitration practice and promotes a more structured and proactive approach to conflict checks.

10. The 2026 Rules also introduce a dedicated provision on tribunal secretaries (Article 44), subjecting them to independence and impartiality requirements equivalent to those applicable to arbitrators, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the arbitral process.[7]

    Fast-Tracked Procedures: Speed as a Priority

11. Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (‘HEAP’): This new mechanism is designed to meet “the needs of global business for a quick resolution” of certain disputes.[8] By opting into HEAP, parties can obtain an award within three months of the initial CMC.[9] The Rules also allow parties to issue an award without reasons.[10]

12. Expedited Procedure Provisions (‘EPP’): The monetary threshold for the automatic application of EPP has been increased from US$3 million to US$4 million.[11] As under the previous Rules, parties remain free to opt out of this regime, preserving flexibility while expanding its potential scope.[12]

13. Emergency Arbitration (‘EA’) Procedure: The 2026 Rules introduce two notable developments in relation to emergency arbitration. First, EA may now be initiated against “any party for which the President is satisfied […] that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist”, thereby broadening access to this mechanism.[13] According to the ICC, this amendment reflects the evolution of practice across the 287 EA applications administered since the procedure’s introduction in 2012.[14] Second, the 2026 Rules expressly recognise the availability of preliminary orders within EA proceedings. A party may request an order—including on an ex parte basis—directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the application, subject to the immediate right of all other parties to be heard once the order is made.[15]

    Early Determination for Manifestly Unjustified Claims or Defences (Article 30)

14. Early determination, first introduced in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of Arbitration in 2017, has now been incorporated into the Rules themselves. This change responds “to feedback from the global business community” and aims “to remove any remaining doubt on arbitral tribunal’s power to use this tool”.[16] Under Article 30 of the 2026 Rules, a party may apply for the early determination of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction, subject to the tribunal’s discretion to allow such an application to proceed.

15. In doing so, the ICC brings its procedural framework into closer alignment with other leading arbitral institutions, such as the LCIA, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (‘HKIAC’) and SIAC.[17] This reform confirms early determination as a powerful case management tool, enabling tribunals to dismiss unmeritorious claims or defences at an early stage in the interest of procedural efficiency.

    Truncated Tribunals: Reducing Late-Stage Disruption (Article 16)

16. 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”,[18] rather than only after the closing of the proceedings.[19] 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—once both parties’ cases have been fully presented—thereby preserving procedural efficiency and avoiding the need to revisit completed phases of the arbitration.

    Costs: Adjusted Fee Scales (Articles 40-41, Appendix III and Schedule of Fees)

17. 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 US$10 million, while targeted increases apply to larger value disputes.[20] 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.[21]

    Looking Ahead

18. The 2026 Rules represent a coherent evolution of the ICC arbitration framework. Taken together, the changes point towards faster, more flexible, and more tailored proceedings. 

19. Looking ahead, parties and counsel should take the 2026 Rules into account when drafting arbitration clauses—particularly where parties wish to take advantage of HEAP, which require an explicit opt-in.