ICC Arbitration Rules 2026: targeted adjustments to enhance procedural efficiency

In an economic and geopolitical environment marked by increasing instability, arbitration is proving more essential than ever as an effective alternative dispute resolution method suited to international matters. Building on over a century of expertise, the ICC has positioned itself as a leading institution, recognised for the quality of its services and the reliability of its procedures.

The entry into force of the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules fits squarely within this tradition. Far from a radical reform, the ICC is, on the contrary, introducing targeted adjustments, guided by a clear objective: to improve procedural efficiency and to offer tools better tailored to the needs of each dispute.

This revision, which is deliberately limited, is also in line with the structural reforms introduced in 2017 and 2021. Without calling into question the structure of the ICC Rules, the text primarily seeks to enhance the speed, readability and predictability of the procedures, particularly for disputes involving small or medium-sized claims or those requiring rapid resolution.

Adopting a distinctly pragmatic approach, the main developments include:

• Strengthening the arbitrators’ disclosure obligations and formally enshrining the confidentiality of proceedings;
• Removing the terms of reference as a mandatory preliminary step in ordinary proceedings;
• Expanding the scope of the expedited procedure and introducing a new “highly expedited” procedure;
• Refining the emergency arbitration framework;
• As well as providing a number of welcome clarifications, in particular regarding the time limit of the ordinary proceedings, the power to summarily dismiss manifestly unmeritorious claims and the status of the arbitral tribunal secretary.

This new version of the ICC Rules of Arbitration came into force today, Monday 1 June 2026, and will apply to all proceedings filed on or after that date, unless the parties agree to be governed by an earlier version.

1. Independence, disclosure and confidentiality: towards greater formalisation (Article 12)

The 2026 Rules enshrine several practices that were previously set out mainly in the Note to parties and arbitral tribunals.

First notable modification, the affirmation of a resolutely ‘pro-disclosure’ approach: in case of doubt, the arbitrator is now expressly required to disclose any facts or circumstances which could call into question the arbitrator’s independence in the eyes of the parties and/or give rise to reasonable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality (Art. 12(2)). Correlatively, the text also makes clear that disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality (Art. 12(4)). The objective is clear: to address any uncertainty at an early stage and thereby limit subsequent challenges.

Second significant change, greater party involvement in the process of identifying and preventing potential conflicts of interest, as they are best placed to identify relevant corporate links and affiliated entities. From their very first submissions, the parties must now identify the entities and persons that potential arbitrators should consider and explain the reasons for such identification (Art. 12(5)).

This pragmatic approach is likely to reduce the risk of issues arising at the stage of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, without relieving the arbitrators of their ongoing duty of disclosure.

Finally, the Rules expressly introduce an explicit duty of confidentiality on the part of the arbitrators, covering all information relating to the arbitration, subject to limited and customary exceptions (Art. 12(8)). This express provision enhances legal certainty and responds to users’ expectations, particularly in sensitive or strategic contexts.

2. Removal of the terms of reference and increased importance of the case management conference (Articles 24 and 25)

The removal of the terms of reference as a mandatory step in ordinary proceedings is the most significant change in the 2026 Rules. Prior to the 2026 Rules, this instrument played a central role: it defined the scope of the dispute (the parties’ claims and the issues to be decided by the tribunal), allowed, where appropriate, for certain imperfections in the arbitration clause to be remedied, and formalised the parties’ consent to ICC arbitration. It is now optional and retained only as a tool available to the tribunal where it is considered useful.

This reform is consistent with the practice developed under the expedited procedure introduced in 2017, where the terms of reference were already optional, without this affecting the quality or certainty of the proceedings.

In practice, the reform shifts the focus of procedural organisation to case management conferences (“CMCs”), whose role is significantly enhanced.

The new Rules introduce a more structured framework for its timing and content: an initial CMC must be held within 30 days of the file being transmitted to the arbitral tribunal. It continues to structure the proceedings by setting the procedural timetable and organising the conduct of the proceedings (Art. 24).

Beyond this role in the initial organisation of proceedings, the first CMC constitutes a key procedural milestone. Once this stage has passed, the submission of any new claims is subject to the tribunal’s authorisation (Art. 25). This mechanism is intended to prevent procedural abuses and to stabilise the scope of the dispute from an early stage.

Finally, the new Rules expressly provide that the tribunal may hold CMCs throughout the proceedings. These intermediate meetings enable the timetable to be adjusted, procedural difficulties to be resolved swiftly and, more broadly, the proceedings to be managed dynamically in order to control timing and costs (Art. 24).

3. Expedited Procedure: a significant expansion of its scope (Article 32 and Appendix V)

The 2026 Rules extend the scope of the expedited procedure provisions (“EPP”) by raising the automatic threshold to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026 (compared with USD 3 million for those concluded between 1 January 2021 and 1 June 2026, and USD 2 million for those concluded between 1 March 2017 and 31 December 2020).

This change is significant: it reflects users’ growing confidence in this procedural format, now seen as an effective tool for managing costs and timelines. ICC statistics indeed show that proceedings conducted under the EPP accounted for approximately 18% of cases initiated in 2024, rising to nearly 20% in 2025. Furthermore, in a context where the median value of ICC arbitrations stands at around USD 5 million, an ever-increasing proportion of new cases is now likely to fall under this simplified regime.

The main features of the expedited procedure remain unchanged:

• In principle, the appointment of a sole arbitrator unless the parties agree otherwise or the Court decides otherwise;
• A tight timetable, with an award expected within six months of the first CMC;
• A streamlined procedure, often conducted primarily in writing;
• Extended powers of the arbitral tribunal to manage the conduct of the proceedings, particularly with regard to the production of evidence.

The broadening of the scope of the EPP calls for careful consideration when drafting arbitration clauses:

• Anticipate the limitations of this mechanism by expressly excluding the expedited procedure for contracts likely to give rise to technically or factually complex disputes, even where the threshold is not exceeded;
• Conversely, take advantage of the mechanism by voluntarily opting for the expedited procedure, even above the threshold, where speed and cost control are the priority.

In practice, expedited arbitration should no longer be viewed as an exceptional regime, but as a strategic option. The decision to use it – or to opt out of it – must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in light of the nature of the contractual relationship, the anticipated complexity of the dispute and the need for speed.

4. Creation of a ‘highly expedited’ procedure (Article 33 and Appendix VI)

The 2026 Rules introduce the new Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”), designed for situations where near-immediate resolution of the dispute is required. Unlike the standard expedited procedure provisions, their application is strictly subject to the express agreement of the parties (opt-in), making it a bespoke tool rather than an automatic mechanism.

This procedure is characterised by an unprecedented degree of time compression and procedural simplification:

• The appointment of a sole arbitrator;
• First CMC scheduled within seven days of the sole arbitrator receiving the case file;
• An award issued, in principle, within three months of the first CMC;
• A highly streamlined procedure, with concentrated written submissions from the outset of the proceedings, the possibility of ruling without a hearing, and strictly regulated investigative measures;
• The option, if the parties so agree, to issue an unreasoned award.

The overall structure is built on a very significant strengthening of the tribunal’s powers, enabling it to shape the proceedings in a pragmatic manner proportionate to the issues at stake, with a view to maximum efficiency.

Safeguards are, however, in place: the procedure may be abandoned during the proceedings, either at the request of the parties or on the initiative of the arbitral tribunal or the Court, if it appears unsuitable to the nature or complexity of the dispute.

In practice, this new tool opens up significant opportunities, particularly for disputes requiring a swift decision for operational or commercial reasons. Its success will depend on its ability to reconcile extreme speed with the quality of the decision – a crucial balance in encouraging users to adopt it.

5. Emergency arbitration: expansion and clarification (Article 31 and Appendix IV)

The 2026 Rules introduce targeted adjustments to the emergency arbitrator regime in order to enhance its operational efficiency.

On the one hand, the text clarifies and broadens the categories of parties that may be subject to emergency measures. It is now possible to include entities in respect of which the existence of an arbitration agreement appears prima facie plausible, based on the evidence provided in support of the application.

This development reflects current practice, particularly in proceedings involving groups of companies or related contracts and aims to prevent excessive formalism from hindering the granting of emergency measures.

On the other hand, the Rules expressly provide for the possibility of seeking preliminary orders, that is to say, interim measures adopted, in exceptional cases, ex parte, i.e. without the opposing party having the opportunity to be heard.

This mechanism addresses situations of immediate risk – dissipation of assets, destruction of evidence – where effectiveness depends on the element of surprise. It thus aligns the ICC regime closer to the standards observed in certain state courts.

These adjustments reflect a clear desire to make emergency arbitration more operational by adapting it to the constraints of international disputes.

In turn, they call for increased vigilance from parties, broadly construed, during the pre-arbitration phase.

6. A more agile, digitalised and streamlined procedure

Beyond specific changes, the 2026 Rules pursue a cross-cutting objective: to enhance both the agility and the efficiency of ICC arbitration, drawing on both new procedural tools and the formalisation of established practices.

• The removal of the six-month time limit for rendering the award in ordinary proceedings

The Rules remove the standard six-month time limit for rendering the final award in ordinary proceedings – a time limit rarely observed in practice and a source of confusion, particularly in light of the time limits applicable to expedited and highly expedited procedures.

Under the 2026 Rules, the time limit is more closely aligned with the reality of the case: the time limit for rendering the award is set by the President of the Court (and may be adjusted if necessary), taking into account the procedural timetable or reasoned requests from the arbitral tribunal (Art. 34).

This bespoke approach aims to strike a balance between predictability and realism, whilst avoiding routine extensions.

• A more proactive approach to disputes

Previously derived from practice, the Rules now expressly enshrine the tribunal’s ability to make an early determination of certain claims (Art. 30) where they appear manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction or without merit.

This power enhances tribunals’ ability to counter dilatory tactics and clarifies the procedural framework applicable to the parties.

This addition also aligns the ICC Rules with the rules of other major arbitration centres. Similar mechanisms exist, in particular, in the rules of the LCIA, ICSID, SIAC and HKIAC, which allow arbitral tribunals to swiftly dismiss claims or arguments that are manifestly unfounded or outside their jurisdiction.

The express introduction of this mechanism into the ICC Rules thus strengthens their competitiveness and harmonise the procedural options available to users, against a backdrop of heightened expectations regarding efficiency and cost control.

• Clarification of the role of the tribunal secretary

The 2026 Rules also formalise the role of the tribunal secretary (Art. 44). While their operational utility is recognised, it is subject to strict safeguards now enshrined in the Rules:

• Requirements of independence, impartiality and confidentiality;
• No decision-making power;
• Functions performed under the close supervision and responsibility of the tribunal.

This clarification facilitates reliance on this key role in the proper functioning of certain proceedings, while addressing concerns regularly raised by users.

Conclusion

The ICC Rules 2026 reflect targeted adjustments, without recasting the model, and refocus on the active management of proceedings. They confirm a fundamental trend towards more proactive, faster and more flexible arbitration, while preserving the essential safeguards of the arbitral process.

For users, the challenge now lies less in embracing new principles than in making full use of existing tools. The practical impact of these innovations will, however, depend on their implementation, starting with the drafting of the arbitration clauses and continuing throughout the proceedings, through the strategic choices made.