I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1. The International Chamber of Commerce ( “ICC”) has published the latest edition of its Arbitration Rules, which came into effect on June 1, 2026 ( “2026 ICC Rules”), together with an updated Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of ICC Arbitration.1 The 2026 ICC Rules are the 10th edition of the ICC’s Arbitration Rules since the ICC was first established in 1919.2
2. The 2026 ICC Rules apply to arbitrations commenced on or after June 1, 2026, unless otherwise agreed by the parties to an arbitration.3 Although the 2026 ICC Rules contain several important practical developments, they do not amount to a wholesale rewrite of the 2021 ICC Rules. Instead, they build on the existing framework and introduce a number of key changes aimed at enhancing procedural efficiency, strengthening disclosure obligations and increasing procedural flexibility.
3. In this update, we review the key changes introduced by the 2026 ICC Rules and consider their practical implications for parties conducting ICC arbitrations.
II. KEY CHANGES TO THE 2026 ICC RULES
A. Removal of the Terms of Reference
4. One of the most significant changes introduced by the 2026 ICC Rules is the removal of the mandatory requirement for tribunals to draw up Terms of Reference (“ToR”). Although tribunals retain discretion to adopt ToR where appropriate, they are no longer a compulsory feature of ICC arbitration.4 This represents a significant departure from earlier versions of the ICC Rules, under which the ToR were a defining feature of ICC arbitration.5
5. Pursuant to Article 23 of the 2021 ICC Rules, the ToR had to be prepared shortly after the transmission of the case file to the tribunal and signed by the parties and tribunal members.6 The ToR served as a procedural blueprint for the arbitration, recording matters such as the parties’ identities, a summary of the claims and relief sought, the issues to be determined, the tribunal’s mandate, and the procedural framework governing the arbitration. The ToR also performed an important gatekeeping function: Once signed or approved by the ICC International Court of Arbitration (“ICC Court”), parties were generally restricted from advancing claims that fell outside their scope without the tribunal’s permission.7
6. Despite these functions, many users viewed the ToR process as an additional procedural layer that increased cost and delay without materially narrowing the issues in dispute. Negotiation of the ToR had itself become contentious in some arbitrations, generating procedural skirmishes at an early stage of the proceedings.8
7. The removal of the mandatory ToR requirement has three important consequences for the conduct of ICC arbitrations.
a. First, the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) becomes the central procedural milestone at the outset of the arbitration.9 Although the CMC remains mandatory under Article 24, it must now be held within 30 days of the transmission of the file to the tribunal. Following the CMC, the tribunal may record key procedural and case-specific matters—such as the parties’ identification, jurisdiction and applicable law—in Procedural Order No. 1 rather than in the ToR.10 The ICC Secretariat is also developing a model Procedural Order No. 1 to support the revised framework.11
b. Second, the CMC replaces the ToR as the procedural cut-off for new claims. Under Article 25 of the 2026 ICC Rules, a party may not advance new claims after the CMC without obtaining the tribunal’s authorization. In deciding whether to allow a new claim, the tribunal must consider factors including the nature of the new claims, the stage of the proceedings, cost implications and all other relevant circumstances. Parties will therefore need to identify their claims, relief sought and key procedural issues at an earlier stage, placing greater importance on careful preparation of Requests for Arbitration and Answers.12
c. Third, the removal of the ToR has prompted a rethink of the award timetable. Under the 2021 ICC Rules, tribunals were expected to render a final award within six months of the last signature of the ToR.13 Although intended to promote efficiency, that deadline was widely regarded as unrealistic except in the simplest cases and was routinely extended.14 Instead, Article 34 of the 2026 ICC Rules empowers the President of the ICC Court to fix and, where necessary, extend the time limit for the final award, taking into account the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the tribunal.15 This should allow timelines to be tailored more closely to the complexity of individual disputes and may encourage more realistic case management from the outset.
8. Overall, the removal of the mandatory ToR reflects the ICC’s broader objective of streamlining arbitral proceedings and reducing procedural formalities. While tribunals retain the flexibility to adopt ToR where they consider them useful, the new framework shifts greater emphasis onto the CMC and Procedural Order No. 1 as the mechanisms for defining and managing the dispute. In complex arbitrations involving multiple parties, multiple contracts or significant jurisdictional issues, parties may nevertheless continue to view ToR as a useful tool for clarifying the scope of the arbitration at an early stage.
B. Introduction of Early Determination Mechanism
9. The 2026 ICC Rules introduce an express early determination mechanism designed to enable tribunals to dispose of unmeritorious claims or defenses at an early stage. In appropriate circumstances, early determination can significantly narrow the issues in dispute, reduce the scope of evidence and submissions required, and avoid the time and expense associated with a full evidentiary hearing.
10. Under Article 30, a party may apply for the early determination of any claim or defense that is “manifestly without merit”16 or “manifestly outside of the tribunal’s jurisdiction.”17 This represents a significant development in ICC arbitration. Although some tribunals had previously relied on their inherent procedural powers to adopt summary or expedited procedures, the 2026 ICC Rules now provide an explicit basis for the early dismissal of claims and defenses. With this change, the ICC joins a growing number of arbitral institutions that expressly permit the early determination of jurisdictional and merits issues, bringing ICC arbitration more closely in line with modern arbitration practice and many domestic court systems.18
11. Article 30 establishes a two-stage process. The tribunal must first decide whether the application is suitable for early determination. Only if it concludes that the application warrants consideration will it proceed to determine the merits of the relevant issues.19 This threshold stage is intended to prevent the mechanism from being misused as a tactical device to delay proceedings and increase costs. It also ensures that only applications capable of being determined summarily are considered under Article 30.
12. Parties seeking early determination should act promptly and make clear why the relevant claim or defense is “manifestly without merit” or “manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.”20 Given the deliberately high threshold set out in Article 30, it will generally be insufficient merely to show that a claim is weak or unlikely to succeed.21 In addition to establishing the applicable threshold, applicants should also explain how granting the application would promote the fair, expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the dispute.22
13. Where used appropriately, Article 30 has the potential to eliminate spurious claims or jurisdictional objections at an early stage, thereby focusing the arbitration on the issues that genuinely require determination.
C. Introduction of “Highly” Expedited Arbitration
14. The 2026 ICC Rules introduce a Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (“HEAP”) designed for parties seeking a final award within three months from the initial CMC.23
15. HEAP is best suited for lower-complexity disputes, claims with a simple factual matrix or distinct aspects of a dispute that necessitate expeditious resolution.24 Joinder and consolidation are not available under HEAP.25
16. Unlike the ICC’s Expedited Procedure Provisions, introduced by the 2017 ICC Rules, HEAP is neither automatic nor subject to any monetary threshold.26 Instead, it applies only where parties opt in, regardless of the amount in dispute. Parties may agree to opt in to HEAP either at the drafting stage—by way of inclusion in the arbitration agreement—or by agreement, after the dispute has arisen.27
17. HEAP disputes will be determined by a sole arbitrator.28 Once the procedure is triggered, the parties have 20 days to agree on the arbitrator, failing which the ICC Court will make the appointment.29 The claimant must file its Statement of Claim together with its Request for Arbitration,30 while the respondent must submit its Statement of Defence with its Answer.31 Reflecting HEAP’s accelerated nature, parties should expect strict limits on further written submissions and witness evidence, limited or no document production, and the possibility that the dispute will be decided without an evidentiary hearing.
D. Emergency Arbitration
18. The 2026 ICC Rules strengthen the emergency arbitration regime, which enables parties to obtain urgent interim or conservatory relief before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.32
19. For the first time, the ICC Rules expressly provide for preliminary orders in emergency arbitrator proceedings. Under the 2026 ICC Rules, emergency arbitrators are empowered to issue preliminary orders designed to preserve the status quo and prevent a party from frustrating the purpose of an emergency application.33 Such orders may be requested and granted without prior notice to the opposing party.34 This ex parte mechanism is intended to address situations in which advance notice could undermine the relief sought—for example, where there is a risk that assets may be dissipated or evidence destroyed before interim measures can be ordered.35
20. The 2026 ICC Rules seek to balance this enhanced flexibility with due process protections.36 Once a preliminary order has been issued, the emergency arbitrator must immediately provide the affected party with a reasonable opportunity to present its case as soon as practicable.37 The emergency arbitrator also retains the authority to modify, terminate or annul the order in light of the parties’ submissions, ensuring that urgent relief remains subject to procedural fairness.38
21. The 2026 ICC Rules also broaden access to emergency arbitration by permitting applications to proceed against parties in respect of whom “the President is satisfied … that an arbitration agreement binding such part[ies] may exist.”39 This lowers the threshold for obtaining emergency relief at a stage when questions concerning jurisdiction or the scope of the arbitration agreement may not yet be fully determined.40
22. Taken together, these changes materially enhance the effectiveness of emergency arbitration under the ICC Rules. By introducing ex parte preliminary orders and expanding access to emergency relief, the 2026 ICC Rules provide parties with more robust tools to preserve assets, protect evidence and secure urgent interim measures where delay could cause irreparable prejudice.
E. Enhanced Arbitrator and Secretary Disclosure Framework
23. The 2026 ICC Rules also strengthen safeguards designed to protect the independence and impartiality of arbitrators and tribunal secretaries. While the ICC has long maintained a comprehensive framework governing arbitrator independence and impartiality, the 2026 revision codifies a number of established practices of the ICC Court and Secretariat, with the aim of enhancing transparency, providing greater clarity and reinforcing confidence in the arbitral process.
24. Article 12(2) preserves the longstanding requirement that prospective arbitrators disclose to the Secretariat “any facts or circumstances” that may call into question their independence in the eyes of the parties or “give rise to reasonable doubts” as to their impartiality. For the first time, however, the ICC Rules expressly provide that any doubt as to whether a disclosure should be made must be resolved in favor of disclosure.41 The Rules also codify the ICC Court’s established position that disclosure does not, by itself, demonstrate a lack of independence or impartiality.42 By elevating these principles from the ICC’s Notes to Parties and arbitral practice into the Rules themselves, the revision seeks to encourage prompt and comprehensive disclosure while reassuring arbitrators that disclosure alone should not be viewed as evidence of conflict.
25. A notable innovation of the 2026 ICC Rules is Article 12(5), which requires parties to provide the Secretariat with a list of relevant persons and entities that may be relevant to a prospective arbitrator’s conflict analysis, together with reasons why they may be relevant.43 This reflects the increasingly complex nature of modern arbitration, where corporate groups, third-party funders, insurers and other interested parties may create potential conflicts that are not immediately apparent. The parties’ lists are intended to complement—not replace—the arbitrator’s own obligation to assess potential conflicts and make any necessary disclosures.44
26. The 2026 ICC Rules further tighten the regime governing tribunal secretaries. Tribunal secretaries must now satisfy the same standards of independence, impartiality and confidentiality as arbitrators and, before appointment, must sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence.45 This change recognizes the increasingly important role tribunal secretaries play in arbitral proceedings and helps ensure that all individuals involved in the tribunal’s work are subject to equivalent ethical and professional standards.
27. Taken together, these amendments strengthen an already robust disclosure framework; align the Rules more closely with established ICC practice, other leading arbitral institutions and the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration; and further enhance confidence in the integrity of ICC arbitration.
F. Other Changes to Drive Efficiency
28. In addition to the changes discussed above, the 2026 ICC Rules introduce several other noteworthy amendments. Some of the more significant changes for parties, arbitrators and counsel are summarized below.
1. Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”): Scope Expanded
29. The ICC’s EPP remain largely unchanged. The regime continues to provide for a sole arbitrator, an expedited six-month timeframe for the final award, streamlined procedures, limits on submissions, and cost efficiencies.
30. The principal change is an increase in the upper monetary threshold for the EPP’s automatic application, from US$3 million to US$4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after June 1, 2026.46 Parties nevertheless retain the flexibility to opt in to or out of the EPP, irrespective of whether the dispute falls within the applicable threshold.47
2. Express Confidentiality Obligation on Arbitrators
31. The 2026 ICC Rules codify, for the first time, an express duty of confidentiality applicable to arbitrators. While confidentiality has long been a feature of ICC arbitration, the 2021 ICC Rules contained no equivalent express provision. Article 12(8) now requires arbitrators to keep all matters relating to the arbitration confidential, except where the information is already public or where disclosure is agreed by the parties, required by law, or necessary to protect a legal right or comply with disclosure obligations.48
3. Arbitrator Appointments
32. The 2026 ICC Rules broaden the criteria for confirming and appointing arbitrators. The Secretary General and the ICC Court must now consider an arbitrator’s experience and expertise alongside their nationality, availability and ability to conduct the arbitration.49 This change underscores the growing importance of ensuring that tribunals possess appropriate subject-matter expertise for the dispute in question.
4. Truncated Tribunal
33. The 2026 ICC Rules empower the ICC Court, subject to the applicable law, to continue proceedings with a truncated tribunal rather than replace an arbitrator who has died or has been removed by the ICC Court.50
34. This discretion arises where the death or removal occurs after the final hearing or the submission of the last substantive pleading, whichever is later.51 By contrast, under the 2021 ICC Rules, the ICC Court could continue with a truncated tribunal only after the proceedings had formally concluded.52
5. Added Reference to Investment Protection Law and State-Related Disputes
35. The 2026 ICC Rules expressly recognize, for the first time, that disputes may arise under investment protection laws as well as treaties. Article 14(6) provides that, where an arbitration agreement is contained in an “investment protection law,” no arbitrator may share the nationality of any party unless the parties agree otherwise.
36. The Rules further specify that the Emergency Arbitrator Provisions at Appendix IV are unavailable where the arbitration agreement arises under an investment treaty or investment protection law.53
6. Electronic Modernization
37. The 2026 ICC Rules continue the ICC’s shift toward digital and technology-enabled proceedings. Tribunals may now expressly sign awards electronically, following consultation with the parties and consideration of the relevant circumstances.54 The Rules also confirm that tribunal deliberations may take place by videoconference or other electronic means where appropriate.55 Additionally, written communications should generally be made by electronic means, reflecting the increasing digitalization of arbitral practice.56
38. These amendments are intended to improve procedural efficiency, reduce administrative and logistical burdens, and facilitate the timely issuance of awards. They also codify practices that have become commonplace in international arbitration, reinforcing the tribunals’ ability to conduct proceedings remotely and make effective use of technology where appropriate.
III. CONCLUDING REMARKS
39. The 2026 ICC Rules seek to make ICC arbitration faster, more flexible and more responsive to user demands without fundamentally altering the features that have made ICC arbitration one of the most widely used forms of international dispute resolution.
40. The most significant changes—the removal of the ToR, introduction of early determination, creation of HEAP and expansion of emergency arbitrator powers—reflect a clear emphasis on procedural efficiency and active case management. At the same time, enhanced disclosure obligations and other governance-related reforms are intended to strengthen confidence in the integrity of the arbitral process.
41. Whether these reforms achieve their stated objective will depend on how readily tribunals and parties embrace the new procedural tools. Nonetheless, the 2026 ICC Rules provide parties with greater flexibility than ever before to tailor proceedings to the needs of a particular dispute and are likely to influence arbitral practice beyond ICC-administered cases.
42. For further information on how the 2026 ICC Rules affect your business, or for further information on the above alert, please contact the authors or other members of our international arbitration team.
