June 2026
Navigating the New 2026 ICC Rules of Arbitration
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has introduced its most significant revision to the arbitration rules since 2021. The 2026 ICC Rules of Arbitration (“2026 Rules”) took effect on June 1, 2026, replacing the 2021 version.
These updates aim to improve efficiency, transparency, and procedural flexibility to meet the evolving needs of global users. Key changes include removing mandatory Terms of Reference, introducing a “Highly Expedited” procedure, and codifying early determination powers.
Below, we examine the most significant revisions and their practical implications for parties and practitioners.
I. The End of Mandatory Terms of Reference
One of the most notable structural changes in the 2026 Rules is the move away from Terms of Reference as a mandatory procedural stage. Historically, Terms of Reference defined the dispute’s scope and summarized claims. However, users often viewed the drafting process as time-consuming and costly, and the document was often quickly overtaken by later procedural orders.
Under the new regime, the arbitral tribunal may decide whether to draw up Terms of Reference based on the needs of the case (Article 24). With Terms of Reference no longer required by default, the Case Management Conference (CMC) becomes the central procedural milestone, and the tribunal must hold an initial CMC within 30 days of receiving the case file (Article 24(1)).
Crucially, the 2026 Rules tie the “procedural cut-off point” to the initial CMC. Once the initial CMC has been held, no party may submit new claims unless the tribunal authorizes it (Article 25). This cut-off mechanism requires parties to prepare their case early and ensure that all claims are complete at the outset.
II. Accelerated Resolution: HEAP and Increased EPP Thresholds
The ICC is responding to commercial demand for faster and more cost-effective dispute resolution through two major frameworks.
A. New “Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions” (HEAP)
The 2026 Rules introduce the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provision, a new procedural model designed for near-immediate resolution of straightforward disputes (Article 33 and Appendix VI). Unlike other expedited rules, HEAP applies only when all parties expressly agree to it (Article 33).
To that end, HEAP cases are heard by a sole arbitrator (Appendix VI, Article 4), and the tribunal must issue a final award within three months of the initial CMC (Appendix VI, Article 7(1)). After consulting the parties, the tribunal may decide the case solely on documents, without a hearing or examination of witnesses or experts (Appendix VI, Article 6(3)).
The parties may also agree to the issuance of an award without reasons to further shorten the timeline (Appendix VI, Article 7(2)).
B. Increased Threshold for Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP)
The automatic application threshold for the existing Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP) has increased from USD 3 million to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after June 1, 2026 (Appendix V, Article 1(3)(c)).
III. Codification of the Early Determination Mechanism
The 2026 Rules formally introduce an Early Determination mechanism for claims or defenses (Article 30). Any party may ask the arbitral tribunal to determine one or more claims or defenses early on the ground that:
1. such claims or defenses are manifestly without merit; or
2. such claims or defenses are manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The tribunal has the discretion to allow such an application to proceed; if it does, it shall adopt the procedural measures it considers appropriate after consulting the parties (Article 30(2)). While some ICC tribunals previously exercised similar powers under their general case management authority, this codification provides an express textual basis and aligns ICC practice with mechanisms such as SIAC “Early Dismissal” concepts (SIAC Rules Article 47).
IV. Enhanced Emergency Arbitration (EA) Proceedings
The Emergency Arbitration framework (Article 31 and Appendix IV) has been strengthened to provide more reliable operational tools. Most notably, the Rules now expressly allow a “Preliminary Order” to be issued on an ex parte basis for the first time (Appendix IV, Article 7(1)), making urgent protection more accessible where notice could undermine relief. Due process is maintained by requiring the emergency arbitrator to give all other parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard immediately after the order is made (Appendix IV, Article 7(4)).
The 2026 Rules also expand the reach of EA proceedings, which may now be initiated against signatories, their successors, and even non-signatories where the ICC Court President is satisfied that a binding arbitration agreement may exist (Appendix IV, Article 1(2)). This is particularly useful in complex group structures. At the same time, the EA regime expressly excludes arbitrations arising from a treaty or an investment protection law to avoid jurisdictional overlap (Appendix IV, Article 1(3)(c)).
V. Transparency and Professional Ethics
A central theme of the 2026 Rules is the shift toward greater transparency and more proactive management of professional ethics.
A. Strengthened Disclosure Framework
The 2026 Rules introduce a strengthened disclosure framework for prospective arbitrators. Under the new standard, arbitrators must resolve any doubt in favor of disclosure (Article 12(2)), reflecting a “pro-disclosure” approach designed to address uncertainty early and limit late-stage challenges. This duty is further characterized as ongoing, applying throughout the entire arbitration (Article 12(3)). At the same time, the Rules clarify that disclosure does not by itself establish a lack of independence or impartiality (Article 12(4)).
B. Party Duty to Assist
To streamline conflict checks, each party must submit a list of relevant persons and entities that arbitrators should consider when assessing potential conflicts (Article 12(5)). Parties must also promptly disclose the identity of any non-party funder with an economic interest in the outcome (Article 12(6)).
C. Confidentiality and Tribunal Secretaries
The 2026 Rules also introduce two notable changes concerning the conduct and composition of the arbitral tribunal. First, arbitrators are now subject to an express duty of confidentiality regarding all matters relating to the arbitration (Article 12(8)), while the existing rules allow parties to agree on the extent to which they wish the arbitration to be confidential. Second, the role of the Tribunal Secretary is now fully regulated under Article 44: secretaries must meet the same independence, impartiality, and confidentiality requirements as arbitrators (Article 44(2)), must work under the tribunal’s direction and control, and are strictly prohibited from exercising decision-making authority (Article 44(1)).
VI. Modernization and Other Procedural Adjustments
The 2026 Rules introduce several modernization and procedural adjustments. On the digital front, electronic communication is now the default for all written correspondence (Article 3(1)); tribunals are expressly authorized to sign awards electronically (Article 38(1)(a)); and the Rules codify the post-pandemic reality by allowing tribunals broad discretion to conduct hearings in person, in hybrid form, or by videoconference (Article 27(1)), with deliberations also permitted by videoconference or other electronic means (Article 19(3)).
Several changes also target procedural efficiency and flexibility. The rigid six-month deadline for the final award has been removed, and the ICC Court President is now responsible for fixing a realistic deadline based on the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the tribunal (Article 34). The time limit for the tribunal to issue its own corrections of errors in the award has been extended from 30 to 45 days (Article 39(1)). To prevent tactical delays at the final stage of a case, the ICC Court may also proceed with a truncated tribunal if an arbitrator dies or is removed by the Court pursuant to Article 16(1) or 16(3) after the last hearing or the filing of the last substantive submissions (Article 16(5)). Finally, where translations conflict, the English version of the Rules prevails (Article 48).
The ICC Court is one of the most preferred arbitral institutions worldwide. As the 2026 Rules take effect, it is essential for any party engaged in or contemplating international arbitration to understand these changes.
If you have any questions regarding the application of the new Rules, please do not hesitate to contact the LTP professional team.
These updates aim to improve efficiency, transparency, and procedural flexibility to meet the evolving needs of global users. Key changes include removing mandatory Terms of Reference, introducing a “Highly Expedited” procedure, and codifying early determination powers.
Below, we examine the most significant revisions and their practical implications for parties and practitioners.
I. The End of Mandatory Terms of Reference
One of the most notable structural changes in the 2026 Rules is the move away from Terms of Reference as a mandatory procedural stage. Historically, Terms of Reference defined the dispute’s scope and summarized claims. However, users often viewed the drafting process as time-consuming and costly, and the document was often quickly overtaken by later procedural orders.
Under the new regime, the arbitral tribunal may decide whether to draw up Terms of Reference based on the needs of the case (Article 24). With Terms of Reference no longer required by default, the Case Management Conference (CMC) becomes the central procedural milestone, and the tribunal must hold an initial CMC within 30 days of receiving the case file (Article 24(1)).
Crucially, the 2026 Rules tie the “procedural cut-off point” to the initial CMC. Once the initial CMC has been held, no party may submit new claims unless the tribunal authorizes it (Article 25). This cut-off mechanism requires parties to prepare their case early and ensure that all claims are complete at the outset.
II. Accelerated Resolution: HEAP and Increased EPP Thresholds
The ICC is responding to commercial demand for faster and more cost-effective dispute resolution through two major frameworks.
A. New “Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions” (HEAP)
The 2026 Rules introduce the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provision, a new procedural model designed for near-immediate resolution of straightforward disputes (Article 33 and Appendix VI). Unlike other expedited rules, HEAP applies only when all parties expressly agree to it (Article 33).
To that end, HEAP cases are heard by a sole arbitrator (Appendix VI, Article 4), and the tribunal must issue a final award within three months of the initial CMC (Appendix VI, Article 7(1)). After consulting the parties, the tribunal may decide the case solely on documents, without a hearing or examination of witnesses or experts (Appendix VI, Article 6(3)).
The parties may also agree to the issuance of an award without reasons to further shorten the timeline (Appendix VI, Article 7(2)).
B. Increased Threshold for Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP)
The automatic application threshold for the existing Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP) has increased from USD 3 million to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after June 1, 2026 (Appendix V, Article 1(3)(c)).
III. Codification of the Early Determination Mechanism
The 2026 Rules formally introduce an Early Determination mechanism for claims or defenses (Article 30). Any party may ask the arbitral tribunal to determine one or more claims or defenses early on the ground that:
1. such claims or defenses are manifestly without merit; or
2. such claims or defenses are manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The tribunal has the discretion to allow such an application to proceed; if it does, it shall adopt the procedural measures it considers appropriate after consulting the parties (Article 30(2)). While some ICC tribunals previously exercised similar powers under their general case management authority, this codification provides an express textual basis and aligns ICC practice with mechanisms such as SIAC “Early Dismissal” concepts (SIAC Rules Article 47).
IV. Enhanced Emergency Arbitration (EA) Proceedings
The Emergency Arbitration framework (Article 31 and Appendix IV) has been strengthened to provide more reliable operational tools. Most notably, the Rules now expressly allow a “Preliminary Order” to be issued on an ex parte basis for the first time (Appendix IV, Article 7(1)), making urgent protection more accessible where notice could undermine relief. Due process is maintained by requiring the emergency arbitrator to give all other parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard immediately after the order is made (Appendix IV, Article 7(4)).
The 2026 Rules also expand the reach of EA proceedings, which may now be initiated against signatories, their successors, and even non-signatories where the ICC Court President is satisfied that a binding arbitration agreement may exist (Appendix IV, Article 1(2)). This is particularly useful in complex group structures. At the same time, the EA regime expressly excludes arbitrations arising from a treaty or an investment protection law to avoid jurisdictional overlap (Appendix IV, Article 1(3)(c)).
V. Transparency and Professional Ethics
A central theme of the 2026 Rules is the shift toward greater transparency and more proactive management of professional ethics.
A. Strengthened Disclosure Framework
The 2026 Rules introduce a strengthened disclosure framework for prospective arbitrators. Under the new standard, arbitrators must resolve any doubt in favor of disclosure (Article 12(2)), reflecting a “pro-disclosure” approach designed to address uncertainty early and limit late-stage challenges. This duty is further characterized as ongoing, applying throughout the entire arbitration (Article 12(3)). At the same time, the Rules clarify that disclosure does not by itself establish a lack of independence or impartiality (Article 12(4)).
B. Party Duty to Assist
To streamline conflict checks, each party must submit a list of relevant persons and entities that arbitrators should consider when assessing potential conflicts (Article 12(5)). Parties must also promptly disclose the identity of any non-party funder with an economic interest in the outcome (Article 12(6)).
C. Confidentiality and Tribunal Secretaries
The 2026 Rules also introduce two notable changes concerning the conduct and composition of the arbitral tribunal. First, arbitrators are now subject to an express duty of confidentiality regarding all matters relating to the arbitration (Article 12(8)), while the existing rules allow parties to agree on the extent to which they wish the arbitration to be confidential. Second, the role of the Tribunal Secretary is now fully regulated under Article 44: secretaries must meet the same independence, impartiality, and confidentiality requirements as arbitrators (Article 44(2)), must work under the tribunal’s direction and control, and are strictly prohibited from exercising decision-making authority (Article 44(1)).
VI. Modernization and Other Procedural Adjustments
The 2026 Rules introduce several modernization and procedural adjustments. On the digital front, electronic communication is now the default for all written correspondence (Article 3(1)); tribunals are expressly authorized to sign awards electronically (Article 38(1)(a)); and the Rules codify the post-pandemic reality by allowing tribunals broad discretion to conduct hearings in person, in hybrid form, or by videoconference (Article 27(1)), with deliberations also permitted by videoconference or other electronic means (Article 19(3)).
Several changes also target procedural efficiency and flexibility. The rigid six-month deadline for the final award has been removed, and the ICC Court President is now responsible for fixing a realistic deadline based on the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the tribunal (Article 34). The time limit for the tribunal to issue its own corrections of errors in the award has been extended from 30 to 45 days (Article 39(1)). To prevent tactical delays at the final stage of a case, the ICC Court may also proceed with a truncated tribunal if an arbitrator dies or is removed by the Court pursuant to Article 16(1) or 16(3) after the last hearing or the filing of the last substantive submissions (Article 16(5)). Finally, where translations conflict, the English version of the Rules prevails (Article 48).
The ICC Court is one of the most preferred arbitral institutions worldwide. As the 2026 Rules take effect, it is essential for any party engaged in or contemplating international arbitration to understand these changes.
If you have any questions regarding the application of the new Rules, please do not hesitate to contact the LTP professional team.
