When Time Matters: Highly Expedited, Expedited, and Emergency Arbitrations under the 2026 ICC Rules

Find a lawyer Our capabilities Your career

Jun 8 2026

As explored in our first post in this series, the 2026 revision of the ICC Arbitration Rules (2026 ICC Rules) marks one of the most significant modernisations of the ICC framework in the past years. In our second instalment, we turn to one of the more consequential aspects of the 2026 revision: procedural speed.

With the average duration of ICC arbitrations at around 26 months, which in some cases is longer than the commercial relationships underlying the dispute, the 2026 ICC Rules seek to address a long-standing user concern that arbitration timelines are misaligned with the realities of modern business. The revisions to the rules are intended to give parties procedural options better suited to differing levels of urgency, complexity, and risk.

This post examines the three accelerated procedures under the 2026 ICC Rules, focusing in turn on the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP), Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP), and Emergency Arbitration (EA).

Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP)
HEAP represents the most prominent innovation of the 2026 revisions, set out in Appendix VI of the amended Rules. Building upon the existing EPP framework, it introduces further truncated timelines aimed at delivering a final award within three months from the initial case management conference (CMC), rather than the six months provided under the EPP, and is designed for specialised disputes in which swift resolution and procedural economy are prioritised.
1. Trend towards HEAP to meet user demand
  The ICC’s introduction of HEAP addresses users’ growing demand for even further-accelerated arbitrations and greater efficiency. In the last decade, time and costs have been cited as the most significant hurdles against the greater adoption of arbitration. In the 2025 Queen Mary survey, “expedited or express arbitration procedures” were ranked as the number one process that would most improve arbitral efficiency.
  Discussions on moving from expedited to highly expedited arbitration procedures have gained traction in the last few years.
  - In 2024, the UNCITRAL Working Group II (WGII) issued a set of model contractual provisions aimed at shortening the time for every arbitral step, including reducing the time limit for rendering an award from six months to 45 days (extendable to 90 days) (see our blog post here).
  - In 2025, SIAC introduced a new Streamlined Procedure (in addition to its pre-existing expedited procedure), which provides for the issuance of an award within three months from tribunal constitution.
  Other arbitral institutions may follow suit, such as the upcoming LCIA Rules revision that has already identified expedited and fast-tracked procedures as a focal point.
2. Structure and functioning of HEAP
  HEAP requires the mutual agreement of both parties, either at the drafting stage through inclusion in the arbitration agreement, or after the dispute has arisen, with no automatic application or unilateral opt-in. Compared to EPP under the 2026 ICC Rules (addressed below), HEAP imposes strict submission deadlines and shorter procedural timelines.
  - A dispute under HEAP is decided by a sole arbitrator only (see Appendix VI, Art 4(1)). No provision is made for a three-member tribunal; parties preferring a full panel must proceed under the standard ICC Rules.
  - Access to HEAP is not automatic: the ICC Secretary General must be prima facie satisfied that an arbitration agreement binding the parties under HEAP may exist, failing which the arbitration proceeds under the EPP or the standard ICC Rules (see Appendix VI, Art 2(3)).
  - The tribunal is constituted under an expedited timetable: the parties have 20 days to agree on a sole arbitrator, failing which the ICC Court will make the appointment (see Appendix VI, Art 4(2)).
  - The compressed timetable requires the parties to present their case in full at the outset, with the Statement of Claim filed with the Request for Arbitration, and the Statement of Defence with the Answer, each with any supporting evidence (see Appendix VI, Arts 2(1)-(6)). Where counterclaims are raised, the claimant must submit a Reply to Counterclaim within 20 days, unless the sole arbitrator determines otherwise (see Appendix VI, Art 2(7)). These pre-CMC deadlines cannot be extended without party agreement.
  - Upon transmission of the file, the initial CMC must be held within seven days (unless extended by the Secretary General) (see Appendix VI, Art 6(1)). From that point, the award must be rendered within three months, subject to any extension granted by the President of the ICC Court in exceptional circumstances (see Appendix VI, Art 7(1)). This timeframe covers award drafting, ICC Court scrutiny, and notification of the award to the parties.
  - The tribunal enjoys broad discretion to shape the proceedings (see Appendix VI, Art 6(2)). It may, after consulting the parties, limit the number, length and scope of written submissions and witness evidence, exclude document production, or decide the dispute solely on the basis of documents, without a hearing or the examination of witnesses or experts. For procedural simplicity, joinder and consolidation are not permitted (see Appendix VI, Art 3).
  - Most strikingly, HEAP allows the parties to agree to an award without reasons (see Appendix VI, Art 7(2)), which deviates from the ICC’s mandatory practice of reasoned awards (see 2026 ICC Rules, Art 35(2)). HEAP also adopts the same cost scale as the EPP, resulting in lower tribunal fees than in standard ICC proceedings.
3. Practical implications
  While HEAP is available for disputes of any amount, its utility is likely to be maximised for simpler disputes confined to specific issues requiring urgent determination within larger proceedings, time‑critical sectors such as sports and high-tech companies in the life sciences and technology sectors, pre-closing M&A disputes in all sectors, and cases where both parties share an interest in expedited resolution. However, users should carefully consider specific risks such as:
  - Enforceability of an unreasoned award: The most significant practical risk arises when the parties choose to waive a reasoned award. Though unreasoned awards have long been used in some jurisdictions, such as the United States, to increase efficiency in time-sensitive disputes, in some jurisdictions, the absence of reasons may constitute grounds for setting aside or refusing enforcement, even where parties have expressly agreed to dispense with them. Similar concerns have been noted in WGII discussions, in particular that an unreasoned award may be perceived as conflicting with public policy or limiting the ability of courts to exercise judicial control. While the ICC Court will consider the validity and enforceability of the award and the requirements of mandatory law at the place of arbitration during scrutiny, this does not eliminate the risk that an unreasoned award may face enforcement difficulties in certain jurisdictions. Any such agreement should therefore be carefully considered in light of the seat of arbitration and the jurisdictions in which enforcement is likely to be sought.
  - Ensuring that truncated timeframes are suitable at the outset: By agreeing to HEAP, the parties accept its strict procedure and truncated timeframes, which are about twice as fast as the EPP. Parties should ensure that such timeframes are suited for their dispute at the outset, including that key business people and other potential witnesses and documentary evidence could be made available on the timeframe contemplated in the Rules, as it may be difficult to agree on an extension once the dispute has arisen.
The Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP)
Expedited or express arbitration procedures have been highly successful in addressing users’ growing concerns over costs and time, with 84% of users perceiving them to be more efficient than non-expedited arbitration.
Since its introduction in March 2017, the ICC has administered more than 1,000 cases under the EPP, which applies by default to disputes below a specified monetary threshold, resulting in more than 590 final awards.
According to the ICC’s recently published EPP report covering cases up to 2024, 63% of awards were issued on or around the six-month deadline. The EPP’s uptake has not been confined to its default scope: based on the same dataset, around 16% of cases have involved parties opting into the EPP, including, in some instances, disputes exceeding the applicable monetary thresholds. These figures suggest that the procedure is not only widely used but has also evolved from a default mechanism for lower‑value disputes into a more flexible procedural tool, used by parties to prioritise efficiency beyond its original scope. Against that background, the 2026 revision extends its scope while leaving its underlying framework intact.
1. The 2026 revisions
  The EPP, set out in Appendix V of the 2026 ICC Rules, retains its foundational structure: automatic application for disputes below the prescribed threshold (currently US$4 million - see Appendix V, Art 1(3) and discussion below), subject to party opt‑out and the ICC Court’s discretion (see Appendix V, Art 1(4)(c)), a sole arbitrator by default, whom the ICC Court may appoint notwithstanding a contrary provision in the arbitration agreement (see Appendix V, Art 2(1)), and an award rendered within six months of the initial CMC, which must be held within 15 days of the tribunal receiving the file (seeAppendix V, Arts 3(1) and 4). As noted above, the six-month time period distinguishes the EPP from HEAP, which provides that the tribunal shall render the award within three months of the initial CMC.
  Under the EPP, the tribunal may limit written submissions, witness evidence and document production, and decide the case on documents only (see Appendix V, Arts 3(2) and 3(3)). Parties may nevertheless opt in for higher-value disputes or opt out of the EPP regardless of the threshold or agree on a three-member tribunal. However, the ICC Court retains the authority to determine that the EPP would not apply, including where, in light of the circumstances of the dispute, the expedited procedure is considered inappropriate.
  The key change to the 2026 ICC Rules is the increase in the threshold amount for automatic application of the EPP: US$4 million for claims brought under arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. Prior thresholds are preserved: US$2 million for arbitration agreements concluded between 1 March 2017 and 1 January 2021; and US$3 million for those concluded between 1 January 2021 and 1 June 2026. The ICC’s 2025 statistics show that a substantial portion of its caseload falls within the new bracket, with more than 40% of cases being below the US$4 million threshold. In contrast, based on ICC data from 2017 up to 2024, only 5.6% of EPP cases have exceeded US$3 million. This, in turn, extends the EPP to a larger share of disputes and expands its default application across the ICC caseload.
2. Practical implications
  For parties, the key consequence of this change is that the EPP will apply more frequently unless the parties opt out. Parties should therefore carefully consider which monetary threshold might apply to disputes arising under their arbitration agreements when drafting those agreements.
  The ICC model arbitration clause and the ICC Toolkit for Arbitrators on EPP remain important drafting references. Parties contracting above US$4 million who wish to apply EPP should opt in expressly, while those expecting disputes below the threshold but anticipating procedural complexity should consider opting out to avoid the automatic application of EPP.
Emergency Arbitration (EA)
EA addresses the procedural gap between the initiation of a dispute and the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, where parties may otherwise be exposed to risks such as dissipation of assets, loss of evidence, or alteration of contractual positions. It enables parties to obtain urgent interim or conservatory relief within the arbitral framework without recourse to national courts, thereby maintaining the confidentiality of the proceedings.
1. The 2026 revisions
  The EA provisions contained in Appendix IV have been refined under the 2026 ICC Rules:
  - Application to non-signatories: Under the 2021 ICC Rules, EA proceedings were limited to signatories and their successors. The 2026 ICC Rules clarify that requests for emergency relief may also be directed against a non-signatory if the President of the ICC Court is satisfied on a prima facie basis that an arbitration agreement binding that party may exist (see Appendix IV, Art 1(2)(c)). The arbitral tribunal nonetheless retains full authority to rule on jurisdiction in the main proceedings and is not bound by the emergency arbitrator's findings.
  - New preliminary orders (including ex parte): Under the 2026 ICC Rules, at any stage of EA proceedings, a party may now request an order preventing the opposing party from frustrating the purpose of the application. Importantly, such requests may be made and decided without prior notification to the responding party, where advance notice would risk rendering the requested relief ineffective. Where a request for a preliminary order is submitted before the EA application has been notified to the other party, it is sent together with the EA application to the emergency arbitrator. If a preliminary order is granted, the emergency arbitrator must immediately afford the other parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case and may modify or revoke the order in light of their submissions (see Appendix IV, Art 7).
    Preliminary forms of relief have already been recognised in other institutional frameworks, notably in the Swiss Rules and, more recently, in the 2025 SIAC Rules, which introduced a structured “Protective Preliminary Order” mechanism for ex parte relief, with accelerated timelines and dedicated procedural safeguards. The 2026 ICC Rules similarly aim to prevent the frustration of relief but adopt a more restrained approach by incorporating preliminary orders within the existing emergency arbitration framework rather than establishing a separate procedure. This development reflects a broader shift towards ensuring that emergency relief remains effective at the earliest stages of arbitration.
2. Practical implications
  The extension to non-signatories addresses a recurring gap in EA practice. In many cases, control over the relevant assets or conduct rests with a parent company, affiliate, or special purpose vehicle that is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.
  The 2026 ICC Rules address this issue. Under the required prima facie threshold, the President of the ICC Court needs to be satisfied that an arbitration agreement may bind the non-signatory party to bring non‑signatories within the reach of emergency proceedings. Doctrines such as group of companies, alter ego, and implied consent remain the substantive basis for that assessment.
  Our third and final post in this series will examine the structural changes in the 2026 ICC Rules regarding the flexibility of the arbitral process - and their potential pitfalls.

* * *

The authors thank Sophia Villalta Chong for her assistance in the preparation of this post.

Authors

New York

Jun 8 2026

Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP)
HEAP represents the most prominent innovation of the 2026 revisions, set out in Appendix VI of the amended Rules. Building upon the existing EPP framework, it introduces further truncated timelines aimed at delivering a final award within three months from the initial case management conference (CMC), rather than the six months provided under the EPP, and is designed for specialised disputes in which swift resolution and procedural economy are prioritised.
1. Trend towards HEAP to meet user demand
  The ICC’s introduction of HEAP addresses users’ growing demand for even further-accelerated arbitrations and greater efficiency. In the last decade, time and costs have been cited as the most significant hurdles against the greater adoption of arbitration. In the 2025 Queen Mary survey, “expedited or express arbitration procedures” were ranked as the number one process that would most improve arbitral efficiency.
  Discussions on moving from expedited to highly expedited arbitration procedures have gained traction in the last few years.
  - In 2024, the UNCITRAL Working Group II (WGII) issued a set of model contractual provisions aimed at shortening the time for every arbitral step, including reducing the time limit for rendering an award from six months to 45 days (extendable to 90 days) (see our blog post here).
  - In 2025, SIAC introduced a new Streamlined Procedure (in addition to its pre-existing expedited procedure), which provides for the issuance of an award within three months from tribunal constitution.
  Other arbitral institutions may follow suit, such as the upcoming LCIA Rules revision that has already identified expedited and fast-tracked procedures as a focal point.
2. Structure and functioning of HEAP
  HEAP requires the mutual agreement of both parties, either at the drafting stage through inclusion in the arbitration agreement, or after the dispute has arisen, with no automatic application or unilateral opt-in. Compared to EPP under the 2026 ICC Rules (addressed below), HEAP imposes strict submission deadlines and shorter procedural timelines.
  - A dispute under HEAP is decided by a sole arbitrator only (see Appendix VI, Art 4(1)). No provision is made for a three-member tribunal; parties preferring a full panel must proceed under the standard ICC Rules.
  - Access to HEAP is not automatic: the ICC Secretary General must be prima facie satisfied that an arbitration agreement binding the parties under HEAP may exist, failing which the arbitration proceeds under the EPP or the standard ICC Rules (see Appendix VI, Art 2(3)).
  - The tribunal is constituted under an expedited timetable: the parties have 20 days to agree on a sole arbitrator, failing which the ICC Court will make the appointment (see Appendix VI, Art 4(2)).
  - The compressed timetable requires the parties to present their case in full at the outset, with the Statement of Claim filed with the Request for Arbitration, and the Statement of Defence with the Answer, each with any supporting evidence (see Appendix VI, Arts 2(1)-(6)). Where counterclaims are raised, the claimant must submit a Reply to Counterclaim within 20 days, unless the sole arbitrator determines otherwise (see Appendix VI, Art 2(7)). These pre-CMC deadlines cannot be extended without party agreement.
  - Upon transmission of the file, the initial CMC must be held within seven days (unless extended by the Secretary General) (see Appendix VI, Art 6(1)). From that point, the award must be rendered within three months, subject to any extension granted by the President of the ICC Court in exceptional circumstances (see Appendix VI, Art 7(1)). This timeframe covers award drafting, ICC Court scrutiny, and notification of the award to the parties.
  - The tribunal enjoys broad discretion to shape the proceedings (see Appendix VI, Art 6(2)). It may, after consulting the parties, limit the number, length and scope of written submissions and witness evidence, exclude document production, or decide the dispute solely on the basis of documents, without a hearing or the examination of witnesses or experts. For procedural simplicity, joinder and consolidation are not permitted (see Appendix VI, Art 3).
  - Most strikingly, HEAP allows the parties to agree to an award without reasons (see Appendix VI, Art 7(2)), which deviates from the ICC’s mandatory practice of reasoned awards (see 2026 ICC Rules, Art 35(2)). HEAP also adopts the same cost scale as the EPP, resulting in lower tribunal fees than in standard ICC proceedings.
3. Practical implications
  While HEAP is available for disputes of any amount, its utility is likely to be maximised for simpler disputes confined to specific issues requiring urgent determination within larger proceedings, time‑critical sectors such as sports and high-tech companies in the life sciences and technology sectors, pre-closing M&A disputes in all sectors, and cases where both parties share an interest in expedited resolution. However, users should carefully consider specific risks such as:
  - Enforceability of an unreasoned award: The most significant practical risk arises when the parties choose to waive a reasoned award. Though unreasoned awards have long been used in some jurisdictions, such as the United States, to increase efficiency in time-sensitive disputes, in some jurisdictions, the absence of reasons may constitute grounds for setting aside or refusing enforcement, even where parties have expressly agreed to dispense with them. Similar concerns have been noted in WGII discussions, in particular that an unreasoned award may be perceived as conflicting with public policy or limiting the ability of courts to exercise judicial control. While the ICC Court will consider the validity and enforceability of the award and the requirements of mandatory law at the place of arbitration during scrutiny, this does not eliminate the risk that an unreasoned award may face enforcement difficulties in certain jurisdictions. Any such agreement should therefore be carefully considered in light of the seat of arbitration and the jurisdictions in which enforcement is likely to be sought.
  - Ensuring that truncated timeframes are suitable at the outset: By agreeing to HEAP, the parties accept its strict procedure and truncated timeframes, which are about twice as fast as the EPP. Parties should ensure that such timeframes are suited for their dispute at the outset, including that key business people and other potential witnesses and documentary evidence could be made available on the timeframe contemplated in the Rules, as it may be difficult to agree on an extension once the dispute has arisen.
The Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP)
Expedited or express arbitration procedures have been highly successful in addressing users’ growing concerns over costs and time, with 84% of users perceiving them to be more efficient than non-expedited arbitration.
Since its introduction in March 2017, the ICC has administered more than 1,000 cases under the EPP, which applies by default to disputes below a specified monetary threshold, resulting in more than 590 final awards.
According to the ICC’s recently published EPP report covering cases up to 2024, 63% of awards were issued on or around the six-month deadline. The EPP’s uptake has not been confined to its default scope: based on the same dataset, around 16% of cases have involved parties opting into the EPP, including, in some instances, disputes exceeding the applicable monetary thresholds. These figures suggest that the procedure is not only widely used but has also evolved from a default mechanism for lower‑value disputes into a more flexible procedural tool, used by parties to prioritise efficiency beyond its original scope. Against that background, the 2026 revision extends its scope while leaving its underlying framework intact.
1. The 2026 revisions
  The EPP, set out in Appendix V of the 2026 ICC Rules, retains its foundational structure: automatic application for disputes below the prescribed threshold (currently US$4 million - see Appendix V, Art 1(3) and discussion below), subject to party opt‑out and the ICC Court’s discretion (see Appendix V, Art 1(4)(c)), a sole arbitrator by default, whom the ICC Court may appoint notwithstanding a contrary provision in the arbitration agreement (see Appendix V, Art 2(1)), and an award rendered within six months of the initial CMC, which must be held within 15 days of the tribunal receiving the file (seeAppendix V, Arts 3(1) and 4). As noted above, the six-month time period distinguishes the EPP from HEAP, which provides that the tribunal shall render the award within three months of the initial CMC.
  Under the EPP, the tribunal may limit written submissions, witness evidence and document production, and decide the case on documents only (see Appendix V, Arts 3(2) and 3(3)). Parties may nevertheless opt in for higher-value disputes or opt out of the EPP regardless of the threshold or agree on a three-member tribunal. However, the ICC Court retains the authority to determine that the EPP would not apply, including where, in light of the circumstances of the dispute, the expedited procedure is considered inappropriate.
  The key change to the 2026 ICC Rules is the increase in the threshold amount for automatic application of the EPP: US$4 million for claims brought under arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. Prior thresholds are preserved: US$2 million for arbitration agreements concluded between 1 March 2017 and 1 January 2021; and US$3 million for those concluded between 1 January 2021 and 1 June 2026. The ICC’s 2025 statistics show that a substantial portion of its caseload falls within the new bracket, with more than 40% of cases being below the US$4 million threshold. In contrast, based on ICC data from 2017 up to 2024, only 5.6% of EPP cases have exceeded US$3 million. This, in turn, extends the EPP to a larger share of disputes and expands its default application across the ICC caseload.
2. Practical implications
  For parties, the key consequence of this change is that the EPP will apply more frequently unless the parties opt out. Parties should therefore carefully consider which monetary threshold might apply to disputes arising under their arbitration agreements when drafting those agreements.
  The ICC model arbitration clause and the ICC Toolkit for Arbitrators on EPP remain important drafting references. Parties contracting above US$4 million who wish to apply EPP should opt in expressly, while those expecting disputes below the threshold but anticipating procedural complexity should consider opting out to avoid the automatic application of EPP.
Emergency Arbitration (EA)
EA addresses the procedural gap between the initiation of a dispute and the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, where parties may otherwise be exposed to risks such as dissipation of assets, loss of evidence, or alteration of contractual positions. It enables parties to obtain urgent interim or conservatory relief within the arbitral framework without recourse to national courts, thereby maintaining the confidentiality of the proceedings.
1. The 2026 revisions
  The EA provisions contained in Appendix IV have been refined under the 2026 ICC Rules:
  - Application to non-signatories: Under the 2021 ICC Rules, EA proceedings were limited to signatories and their successors. The 2026 ICC Rules clarify that requests for emergency relief may also be directed against a non-signatory if the President of the ICC Court is satisfied on a prima facie basis that an arbitration agreement binding that party may exist (see Appendix IV, Art 1(2)(c)). The arbitral tribunal nonetheless retains full authority to rule on jurisdiction in the main proceedings and is not bound by the emergency arbitrator's findings.
  - New preliminary orders (including ex parte): Under the 2026 ICC Rules, at any stage of EA proceedings, a party may now request an order preventing the opposing party from frustrating the purpose of the application. Importantly, such requests may be made and decided without prior notification to the responding party, where advance notice would risk rendering the requested relief ineffective. Where a request for a preliminary order is submitted before the EA application has been notified to the other party, it is sent together with the EA application to the emergency arbitrator. If a preliminary order is granted, the emergency arbitrator must immediately afford the other parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case and may modify or revoke the order in light of their submissions (see Appendix IV, Art 7).
    Preliminary forms of relief have already been recognised in other institutional frameworks, notably in the Swiss Rules and, more recently, in the 2025 SIAC Rules, which introduced a structured “Protective Preliminary Order” mechanism for ex parte relief, with accelerated timelines and dedicated procedural safeguards. The 2026 ICC Rules similarly aim to prevent the frustration of relief but adopt a more restrained approach by incorporating preliminary orders within the existing emergency arbitration framework rather than establishing a separate procedure. This development reflects a broader shift towards ensuring that emergency relief remains effective at the earliest stages of arbitration.
2. Practical implications
  The extension to non-signatories addresses a recurring gap in EA practice. In many cases, control over the relevant assets or conduct rests with a parent company, affiliate, or special purpose vehicle that is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.
  The 2026 ICC Rules address this issue. Under the required prima facie threshold, the President of the ICC Court needs to be satisfied that an arbitration agreement may bind the non-signatory party to bring non‑signatories within the reach of emergency proceedings. Doctrines such as group of companies, alter ego, and implied consent remain the substantive basis for that assessment.
  Our third and final post in this series will examine the structural changes in the 2026 ICC Rules regarding the flexibility of the arbitral process - and their potential pitfalls.