The 2026 ICC Rules: towards more tailored arbitrations
The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has published a new edition of its Arbitration Rules, which took effect on June 1, 2026 (the “2026 ICC Rules”), as well as an updated version of its Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of ICC Arbitration. This new edition, the tenth since the ICC’s founding in 1919, does not fundamentally alter the structure of the rules but introduces a series of targeted reforms aimed at increasing procedural efficiency, flexibility and transparency.
Greater transparency regarding arbitrators’ independence
The 2026 ICC Rules strengthen the arbitrators’ disclosure obligations. In case of doubt, the arbitrator is now expressly required to disclose any circumstance that could give rise to doubt as to his or her independence or impartiality. From a practical standpoint, this largely reflects existing practice and aligns with well-established to French caselaw.
This change is accompanied by increased involvement of the parties. From the outset of the proceedings, the parties are encouraged and, where required by the Rules (see for instance new Article 12(5)-(6)), expected to identify individuals and entities that may be relevant to conflict checks, thereby facilitating arbitrators’ disclosure obligations.
Introduction of a confidentiality obligation upon arbitrators
The 2026 ICC Rules expressly establish the arbitrators’ obligation of confidentiality. While this obligation was already part of the principles applicable to ICC arbitration, the Rules now articulate this obligation expressly and in greater detail.
Arbitrators must maintain the confidentiality of all information relating to the arbitration, except to the extent that such information is publicly available, disclosure is authorized by the parties, required by law, or necessary to protect or enforce a legal right.
Removal of the Terms of Reference
In ordinary proceedings, the Terms of Reference are no longer mandatory. This represents one of the most significant structural changes introduced by the 2026 ICC Rules. At the same time, the role of the Case Management Conference (“CMC“) has been strengthened, making it an important step at the outset of the proceedings. An initial CMC must take place within 30 days of the file being transmitted to the arbitral tribunal. It will notably serve to establish the procedural timetable and organize the conduct of the proceedings.
The disappearance of the Terms of Reference as a compulsory milestone also affects the management of procedural deadlines. Under the 2021 Rules, the six-month period for rendering the final award was generally calculated from the Terms of Reference. Under the 2026 framework, the timing of the award is linked more closely to the procedural timetable established during the arbitration and monitored by the Court.
Enhanced tools for efficient dispute resolution
One of the key themes of the 2026 ICC Rules is the expansion of the procedural tools available to arbitral tribunals and parties to adapt the arbitration process to the nature, complexity and urgency of each dispute.
Introduction of rules governing early determination
The 2026 ICC Rules now expressly provide that, at the outset of the proceedings, arbitral tribunals are empowered to dispose of claims, defences or issues that are manifestly inadmissible or unfounded.
In practice, tribunals had long exercised similar powers. Yet, its inclusion in the 2026 ICC Rules provides a clearer procedural framework and may encourage its broader use in appropriate cases. By allowing plainly deficient claims or arguments to be disposed of at an early stage, the Rules seek to avoid unnecessary procedural costs and delays.
Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP)
The 2026 ICC Rules also broaden the use of accelerated proceedings.
The threshold for the automatic application of EPP increases from USD 3 million to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. As a result, a larger number of disputes will now benefit from a streamlined procedure, generally conducted by a sole arbitrator and designed to produce an award within six months of the initial Case Management Conference.
The EPP retains its key features: the use of a sole arbitrator as a general rule, a standardized and primarily written procedure, broad powers of the arbitral tribunal to manage the proceedings, and an award expected within six months of the first CMC.
This should be carefully considered when drafting arbitration agreements. Depending on the nature of the contract and the disputes it is likely to generate, parties may either expressly opt out of the expedited procedure where the technical or factual complexity of the potential dispute warrants a more comprehensive process, or choose to benefit from this mechanism where efficiency and cost control are a priority.
Introduction of the highly expedited procedure (HEAP)
The 2026 ICC Rules also introduce the Highly Expedited Procedure (“HEAP”), an opt-in mechanism designed for disputes requiring an exceptionally swift resolution.
Under this framework, a sole arbitrator is appointed, a case management conference must be held within seven days of the file’s transmission, and the awardis expected within three months thereafter. The procedure relies on streamlined submissions, tightly controlled evidentiary measures and, where appropriate, the absence of a hearing.
However, the mechanism remains subject to scrutiny and may be abandoned if the procedure ultimately proves unsuitable for the nature or complexity of the dispute. The HEAP is therefore a niche tool, intended for disputes in which prompt resolution is a key issue.
Emergency arbitration gains greater flexibility
Efficiency considerations also underpin the revised emergency arbitration framework.
Under the 2026 ICC Rules, in exceptional circumstances the emergency arbitrator may grant a preliminary order on an ex parte basis, without prior notice to the opposing party, to prevent a party from frustrating the purpose of the requested emergency measures. The respondent must then be given an immediate opportunity to be heard, after which the emergency arbitrator may modify the order.
Taken together, these four developments illustrate the ICC’s intention to offer a range of procedural pathways, enabling disputes to be resolved through a process that is proportionate to their value, complexity and degree of urgency.
Additional tools to empower arbitral tribunals
Greater focus on arbitrators’ expertise
In addition to factors such as nationality, availability, and the ability to conduct the proceedings efficiently, the Court must now expressly consider prospective arbitrators’ experience and expertise. This change aims to ensure that tribunals are composed in a manner suited to the nature and stakes of the dispute.
Greater flexibility in the event of an arbitrator’s incapacity
In certain circumstances, the Court may now allow the proceedings to continue with the remaining arbitrators following the death or removal of an arbitrator. The aim is to avoid the delays and costs of reconstituting the tribunal, particularly at an advanced stage of the proceedings.
An increasingly digitalized procedure
The procedure is becoming increasingly digitalized.
Communications are, in principle, conducted electronically, deliberations may take place remotely and awards may be signed electronically. These changes bring the Rules into line with practices that had largely become standard in recent years.
Clarification of the role of the secretary of the arbitral tribunal
Acting under the tribunal’s authority and responsibility, secretaries have no decision-making power and must remain independent, impartial, and confidential. Their role is limited to organisational and administrative support and excludes any adjudicatory function.
Conclusion
Rather than revolutionizing ICC arbitration, the 2026 ICC Rules introduce targeted adjustments to make arbitration faster, more flexible, and more efficient, while preserving the essential safeguards of the arbitral process.
In doing so, they reflect a broader trend towards greater procedural tailoring, allowing tribunals to adapt the process to the nature, complexity, value and urgency of each dispute.
The key challenge will be to strategically implement these new tools, starting with the drafting of the arbitration clause and continuing throughout the proceedings. Ultimately, their success will depend on how effectively parties and tribunals deploy these new tools.
