The ICC Introduces Its 2026 Arbitration Rules: Key Changes and Practical Implications

Samaa Haridi is a Vice-President and Agnès Bizard is a Member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration.

Introduction

The International Chamber of Commerce has just released revised Rules of Arbitration, which will enter into force on 1 June 2026. Building on the reforms introduced in 2017 and 2021, the ICC Rules 2026 reflect the institution’s ongoing efforts to respond to the evolving expectations of arbitration users, against the backdrop of increasingly complex proceedings, heightened scrutiny of efficiency and costs, and growing demands for transparency and overall effectiveness of the arbitral process. This Client Alert highlights the most significant changes introduced by the ICC Rules 2026 and discusses their practical implications for parties, counsel and arbitral tribunals.

Background

The ICC Rules 2026 were approved by the ICC Executive Board on 23 March 2026 following an extensive review process led by the ICC Court, its Secretariat and the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. According to the ICC, the updated Rules respond to the continued evolution of arbitration practice and to increasing user expectations in terms of efficiency, cost control and effective case management, while also reflecting developments in arbitral practice and law, enhancing clarity and consistency, and adapting the framework to the needs of a broad range of users, including states, state entities and companies, in an evolving technological environment.

The revision applies to all requests for arbitration filed on or after 1 June 2026 and are intended to ensure that ICC arbitration remains a trusted and effective forum for the resolution of international disputes.

The new Rules introduces a number of targeted amendments and clarifications that are likely to have a direct impact on the conduct of arbitration proceedings. The most significant changes are outlined below.

Key provisions of the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules 

1. Elimination of the Terms of Reference

One of the most noticeable changes in the revised ICC Arbitration Rules is the elimination of the Terms of Reference as a mandatory procedural milestone. Long regarded as a hallmark of ICC arbitration, the Terms of Reference are no longer included in the 2026 Rules and are effectively replaced by a strengthened framework for early case management led by the arbitral tribunal.

As a reminder, under the 2021 Rules, Article 23 required the arbitral tribunal to draw up Terms of Reference defining, inter alia, the parties’ claims and the scope of the dispute, before proceeding further with the arbitration.

While the Terms of Reference historically served as a procedural “anchor” for the arbitration, freezing the scope of the dispute and limiting the possibility of later amendments, the revised Rules achieve similar objectives through different tools. More broadly, this development reflects the ICC’s experience under the expedited procedure, where Terms of Reference are not required and where a significant number of cases have been successfully administered without them. In practice, where considered useful—for instance to clarify the tribunal’s jurisdiction—similar elements have been addressed either as case management techniques or incorporated into procedural orders agreed and signed by the parties and the tribunal. In particular, Article 25 (New Claims) restricts the introduction of new claims after the initial case management conference unless authorised by the tribunal. This means that, in practice, the request for arbitration and answer to the request for arbitration may play a greater and more effective role. Parties will have to define more precisely the content and scope of their claims from the outset, thereby encouraging “frontloading”. This could address a concern for efficiency that is widely shared among users of arbitration. Nevertheless, where arbitral tribunals consider the Terms of Reference useful in specific cases — for example, to clarify jurisdictional issues — they may still be adopted as a case management technique.

The removal of the Terms of Reference (formerly Article 23 of the 2021 ICC Rules) is likely to raise important questions in the context of set-aside proceedings, particularly with respect to challenges based on the excess of mandate of the tribunal (ultra petita). Under the 2021 framework, the Terms of Reference traditionally played an important role in such disputes: they provided a formal, agreed snapshot of the scope of the arbitration, which courts could rely on to assess whether the tribunal had ruled beyond or outside the parties’ submissions.

With the disappearance of Article 23, this reference point no longer exists in the 2026 Rules. As a result, the determination of the tribunal’s mandate will instead be centered on the parties’ written submissions, and will be reflected in the procedural orders issued by the tribunal following the case management conference (Article 24). In addition, the new limitation on introducing claims after the initial case management conference without authorisation (Article 25) is likely to become a key element in assessing whether a tribunal has remained within the scope of the dispute.

2. Early Determination

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce, for the first time, an explicit provision on early determination under new Article 30, marking a significant development when compared to the 2021 Rules, which contained no equivalent express provision. While arbitral tribunals were already understood to possess the inherent power to dismiss manifestly unmeritorious claims or jurisdictionally defective arguments, as reflected in the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals, the absence of a clear textual basis in the rules had given rise to uncertainty in practice, potentially leading to reluctance by some tribunals to exercise such powers.

Article 30 now provides that any party may apply for the early determination of one or more claims or defences on the grounds that they are either “manifestly without merit” or “manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction” and confirms that the tribunal retains discretion both as to whether to entertain such applications and how to conduct the process procedurally. In other words, Article 30 offers a long-awaited mechanism to dispose of weak claims on the facts or the law at an early stage without incurring the cost of full proceedings.

The introduction of this provision reflects a deliberate alignment with other major institutional rules, many of which already include express early dismissal mechanisms (although some are limited to determinations on the law).  Members of the in-house legal community strongly supported codifying this power, due to the practical difficulties and inefficiencies encountered in the absence of a clear rule, notwithstanding the guidance previously provided in ICC practice materials. This reform therefore responds directly to user demand for greater procedural certainty and efficiency at an early stage of the arbitration.

From an annulment perspective, one may anticipate that courts will scrutinise the procedural handling of early determination applications more closely than the mere existence of the power itself. In other words, the key issue is unlikely to be whether a tribunal could dismiss claims at an early stage, this is now clearly established, but rather how it did so, including whether the parties were afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their positions. Provided that tribunals structure these applications carefully and ensure procedural fairness, the introduction of Article 30 should not, in itself, increase the risk of annulment.

3. Confidentiality obligation on arbitrators

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce a new express confidentiality obligation on arbitrators through Article 12(8), addressing a notable gap under the 2021 Rules, which did not explicitly provide for such a duty. The provision now clarifies that arbitrators must keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration, subject only to limited exceptions (public domain information, party agreement, applicable law, or protection of legal rights).

This amendment reflects a deliberate drafting choice. While confidentiality remains a cornerstone of ICC arbitration in practice, the ICC opted not to introduce any general confidentiality obligation on the parties themselves. Instead, the Rules preserve a party‑driven approach, recognising that users typically address confidentiality explicitly in arbitration agreements or procedural orders and may wish to tailor it to their specific needs.

From a practical perspective, this development enhances legal certainty, as parties now have a clear textual basis to rely upon with respect to the tribunal’s confidentiality obligations. However, it also confirms that parties seeking full confidentiality must continue to expressly provide for it, either in their arbitration clause or during the proceedings.

4. Enhanced Arbitrator Disclosure and Party Lists

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules reorganise and clarify the provisions relating to arbitrator disclosure (now Article 12, formerly Article 11), while maintaining the existing disclosure standard, despite significant debate during the revision process. In particular, the ICC deliberately retained its higher standard, as opposed to the “reasonable doubts” threshold found in other frameworks such as the UNCITRAL Model Law, following strong user feedback, notably from jurisdictions such as Brazil.

The revised Rules now expressly incorporate two important principles previously reflected only in ICC practice and guidance. First, any doubts as to whether a disclosure should be made must be resolved in favour of disclosure. Second, the Rules clarify that a disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality. These additions codify longstanding practice and provide greater clarity for both arbitrators and parties in assessing potential conflicts.

A further key innovation is the introduction of a new obligation on parties to submit a list of relevant persons and entities that prospective arbitrators should consider when assessing their independence, together with the reasons for their inclusion. This mechanism is designed to assist arbitrators in fulfilling their disclosure obligations, while addressing concerns about potential abuse through overly broad or strategic listings. The requirement imposed on the parties to provide reasons acts as an important safeguard in this respect. Similarly, the parties should be prepared to identify with precision the affiliates, subsidiaries and other entities relevant to potential conflicts of interest.

The revised framework also reflects a broader effort to incorporate existing ICC practice into the Rules, including the ability of the Secretariat to refer arbitrator confirmations to the Court even in the absence of objections.

In practice, these changes improve transparency and predictability, while reinforcing a pro‑disclosure approach. At the same time, parties will need to engage more actively at the outset of proceedings, particularly when preparing the list of relevant entities, which may become a strategic step in the appointment phase.

5. Tribunal Secretary

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce a new Article 44 dedicated to tribunal secretaries, thereby formalising a role that had previously been governed mainly by practice and guidance rather than express provisions in the Rules.

Under the new framework, after consulting the parties, the arbitral tribunal may appoint a tribunal secretary to work under its direction and control, while making clear that no decision‑making authority may be delegated. This codifies a key safeguard, confirming that ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the arbitration and the award remains exclusively with the tribunal.

The Rules also strengthen safeguards relating to independence and integrity. Tribunal secretaries must satisfy the same independence, impartiality and confidentiality requirements as arbitrators, and must sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence prior to their appointment. This aligns their position more closely with that of arbitrators and enhances confidence in their role.

In parallel, the 2026 Rules clarify the financial framework applicable to tribunal secretaries. While the arbitral tribunal may recover reasonable and justified expenses related to the secretary, the appointment must not create any additional financial burden for the parties, and direct fee arrangements between the tribunal and the parties are prohibited.

For users, Article 44 provides greater transparency and predictability, while preserving flexibility in the use of tribunal secretaries. It also reinforces key safeguards on decision‑making and independence, addressing long‑standing concerns about the proper role and limits of tribunal secretaries in ICC arbitration.

6. Written Communications

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules clarify and consolidate the approach to written communications under Article 3, confirming that the default mode of communication is now electronic. As a general rule, communications with the Secretariat must be made by email or other electronic means that create a record of transmission, reflecting current ICC practice.

This amendment codifies a shift that began during the COVID‑19 pandemic, with proceedings now conducted primarily through digital platforms such as email or ICC Case Connect, in line with broader objectives of efficiency, cost reduction and environmental sustainability. It also confirms that written submissions and communications are expected to be handled in electronic form throughout the arbitration.

In this context, the Rules preserve flexibility. Parties may still request hard copies or transmission by registered post or courier, particularly where required for service or enforcement purposes in certain jurisdictions. This ensures that the system remains compatible with national procedural requirements where physical documentation is necessary.

From a practical standpoint, Article 3 promotes a digital‑first approach to ICC arbitration, streamlining communications and reducing administrative burdens, while maintaining sufficient flexibility to address practical constraints in cross‑border proceedings.

7. Time limit of the arbitral award

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce an important change to the time limit for rendering the final award, replacing the former Article 31 framework with a more flexible regime under Article 34. Under the 2021 Rules, tribunals were required to render the final award within six months, subject to extension by the Court, a timeframe which, in practice, was frequently exceeded and regularly extended.

The 2026 Rules abandon this rigid and often unrealistic deadline. Instead, the President of the Court is now responsible for fixing the time limit, taking into account the procedural timetable established in the case and any reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal.  This aligns the formal framework with actual ICC practice, where timelines are tailored to the specific circumstances of each case.

The new approach introduces a more case‑specific and realistic mechanism, allowing the time limit to reflect the complexity, size and procedural posture of the dispute, rather than relying on a standard default that required systematic adjustment. It also formally recognises the central role of the President in managing the timing of the arbitration.

From a user perspective, the new time limit brings greater clarity and consistency, as the time limit to issue the award is now aligned with the procedural timetable established in the arbitration. It also limits the need for repeated extensions, contributing to a more streamlined process, reducing the uncertainty associated with the former six‑month timeframe and removing confusion caused by automatic extension.

8. Signature of the award

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules formalise existing practice regarding the signature and notification of awards through new provisions in Article 38. The Rules now expressly provide that, after consulting the parties and considering the circumstances, the arbitral tribunal may sign awards electronically, sign in counterparts, and/or request notification in paper or electronic form, or any other manner permitted by law.

The new provision highlights the increasing use of electronic tools in arbitral practice, ensuring that awards can be executed and transmitted efficiently while remaining attentive to the specific requirements of domestic courts, some of which continue to adhere to formalistic requirements, such as physical signatures or the existence of a single original, for instance for enforcement purposes.  The new approach therefore introduces greater procedural flexibility, allowing the method of signature and notification to be adapted to the needs of the case and applicable legal constraints.

To go further, the Rules clarify the mechanics and legal effects of notification. The Secretariat will notify the award to the parties once arbitration costs have been fully paid, and such notification, whether electronic or otherwise, constitutes valid notice and waives any additional formalities of notification or deposit on the part of the arbitral tribunal.  The Secretariat will retain an original of the award, and certified copies may be provided to the parties upon request.

This development supports a more streamlined and modernised end to the proceedings, reducing delays associated with execution and transmission of awards. However, parties should remain attentive to enforcement requirements in relevant jurisdictions, as specific notification process may be required beyond notification by the ICC (for instance, notification by diplomatic channel).

Overall, Article 38 confirms the ICC’s move toward a fully digital‑ready arbitration framework, while preserving sufficient flexibility to accommodate jurisdictional or enforcement‑related constraints.

9. Truncated Tribunal

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce a refinement to the treatment of truncated tribunals under Article 16(5), clarifying the circumstances in which an arbitration may proceed without replacing an arbitrator who has ceased to act.

Under the new  Rules, where an arbitrator passes away or is removed after the last hearing or the filing of the last substantive submissions (whichever is later), the Court may decide, where appropriate, that the remaining arbitrators continue the arbitration. In reaching this decision, the Court will consider the views of the remaining arbitrators and the parties, as well as any other relevant circumstances.

The revision expands the flexibility of the Rules. Previously, such an approach was only possible after the formal closing of the proceedings, a stage which, in practice, is often delayed until the draft award has been prepared. The revised provision therefore aligns the Rules more closely with procedural reality, allowing earlier recourse to a truncated tribunal where appropriate.

From a user perspective, the risk of delay is reduced and there is no disruption at an advanced stage of the proceedings, avoiding the need to reconstitute the tribunal when the case is already near completion. It also supports a more efficient and pragmatic management of proceedings, while preserving safeguards through the Court’s supervisory role and its consideration of the parties’ views.

10. Emergency Arbitration : Ex Parte Preliminary Order

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce a targeted clarification to the Emergency Arbitrator provisions (Appendix IV) by expressly recognising the possibility for emergency arbitrators to grant preliminary orders on an ex parte basis, thereby aligning the Rules with established ICC practice.

Under the 2026 Rules, a party may request, at any stage of the emergency proceedings, a preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the application, and such a request may be made and decided without notice to the other parties. This codifies an important procedural tool, allowing urgent protective measures to be granted in situations where prior notification could undermine their effectiveness. This is a significant development for parties facing urgent situations where advance notice to the opposing party could frustrate the very purpose of the interim relief sought — for example, asset dissipation or destruction of evidence.

The Rules further clarify the procedural mechanics of such requests. Where a preliminary order is sought before the application has been notified, the Secretariat will transmit the request to the emergency arbitrator prior to notifying the other parties. Once the emergency arbitrator has ruled on the request, the application and any request for a preliminary order are then transmitted to the other parties without delay.

Importantly, the revised provisions ensure that due process is preserved. If a preliminary order is granted, the emergency arbitrator must promptly give the other parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and retains the power to modify or revoke the preliminary order. This balances the need for urgent, effective relief with fundamental procedural fairness.

In parallel, the Rules clarify the scope of applicability of the emergency arbitrator mechanism, extending it to cases where the President is satisfied, on the basis of the application, that an arbitration agreement binding a party may exist, even if not definitively established at that stage.

From a user perspective, these adjustments increase the effectiveness and flexibility of emergency arbitration, providing parties with a more robust tool to secure urgent relief, while offering greater clarity as to how such measures will be handled in practice.

11. Increased Expedited Procedure Threshold

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce a targeted but meaningful adjustment to the Expedited Procedure under Appendix V, most notably through an increase of the applicable threshold. Under the 2021 Rules, the expedited procedure applied to disputes not exceeding USD 3 million, whereas the revised framework raises this threshold to USD 4 million, with a corresponding adjustment in other currencies (including an increase from BRL 9.6 million to BRL 12.8 million under the Brazilian scale). This increase is also consistent with ICC case data, which shows that a significant proportion of disputes fall within the lower and mid‑value range, with over one‑third of cases not exceeding USD 3 million and a median value of approximately USD 5 million. Extending the threshold therefore captures a meaningful number of disputes that sit just above the previous limit.

The expedited procedure modification is expressly presented as reflecting inflationary developments and the ICC’s continuing emphasis on procedural efficiency, rather than a fundamental redesign of the expedited mechanism. The core features of the expedited procedure remain unchanged: in particular, the presumption in favour of a sole arbitrator, the tribunal’s broad discretion to streamline the proceedings, and the expectation that the final award will be rendered within six months of the case management conference (subject to extension).

Importantly, however, ICC practice, confirmed during the revision process, demonstrates that these features are applied with a degree of flexibility. Parties may agree to depart from certain aspects of the expedited framework, including by providing for a three‑member tribunal, and the ICC Court retains discretion to determine that the expedited procedure should not apply where the complexity of the dispute renders it inappropriate. In addition, in practice, parties frequently agree to longer procedural timetables, illustrating that the expedited procedure operates less as a rigid model and more as a baseline for procedural efficiency, adaptable to the needs of the case.

12. Introduction of a Highly Expedited Procedure

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce a new procedural framework under Appendix VI, entitled Highly Expedited Arbitration, which constitutes a significant innovation compared to the 2021 Rules, where no equivalent mechanism existed. Unlike the standard expedited procedure, this regime is entirely opt‑in, requiring the express agreement of all parties.

The Highly Expedited Arbitration provisions respond to increasing demand from users for ultra‑fast and simplified dispute resolution mechanisms, without requiring parties to craft bespoke procedural arrangements on an ad hoc basis. In this sense, the 2026 ICC Rules institutionalises a form of arbitration that had previously only existed through party‑tailored procedural agreements, offering instead a structured and predictable framework.

At its core, the Highly Expedited Arbitration regime is characterised by extreme procedural compression. Proceedings are conducted before a sole arbitrator, and the Rules envisage that the final award will be rendered within three months, placing this mechanism among the fastest forms of institutional arbitration currently available.  This acceleration is supported by a range of complementary features, including streamlined written submissions, strict timelines, limited (or no) hearings, and enhanced discretion for the tribunal to curtail evidentiary phases and procedural steps.

From a user perspective, the introduction of Highly Expedited Arbitration creates both new opportunities and strategic considerations. On the one hand, it offers parties access to an exceptionally rapid and potentially cost‑efficient dispute resolution process, particularly suited for time‑sensitive matters or disputes where the value at stake does not justify a longer procedure. It may also be deployed strategically to resolve targeted issues within ongoing commercial relationships, thereby avoiding the disruption of full‑scale proceedings.

On the other hand, the procedural intensity of the regime requires parties to carefully assess its suitability. The compressions of timelines and limitation of procedural tools may restrict the ability to develop complex factual or legal arguments, making the mechanism less appropriate for disputes involving extensive evidence, multiple parties or intricate legal questions. As a result, the decision to opt into the Highly Expedited Arbitration is likely to become a key strategic choice at the contract drafting stage, particularly for parties operating in sectors where speed and certainty are critical. It also offers a valuable tool for resolving discrete issues quickly — for example, pricing disputes, earn-out calculations or urgent contractual interpretations — while preserving the institutional framework and scrutiny of awards characteristic of ICC arbitration.

13. Fees and Costs

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce a series of practical adjustments (fee amounts removed from the Rules and now set out in a separate Schedule of Fees; redistribution of responsibilities within the institution: The Secretary General now handles most financial decisions, including fixing advances on costs and managing day‑to‑day cost issues, while the Court retains authority to fix arbitrators’ fees and ICC administrative expenses).

More importantly for the users, the criteria for fixing arbitrators' fees have been expanded to include the quality of the draft award as an express factor, in addition to the time spent, complexity of the dispute and timeliness of the submission of the draft award to the Court.

14. Governance

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce several targeted updates to governance structures under Appendices I and II, aligning the text with existing practice and strengthening institutional clarity.

A notable change is the removal of references to Alternate Court Members, with the Rules now confirming that the Court is composed solely of the President, Vice‑Presidents and Members. This reflects the reality that all members participate equally in the Court’s work.

The revisions also clarify the role of the Court’s Bureau, providing greater transparency on its functions within the overall governance framework.

Eventually, these updates contribute to a clearer and more robust institutional framework, while ensuring that the Rules accurately reflect how the ICC Court operates in practice.

Conclusion

Taken together, the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules confirm a broader shift toward a more flexible, practice‑driven and user‑focused framework. Rather than introducing radical changes, the revisions largely consolidate existing practice while refining key procedural aspects to better reflect how ICC arbitrations are conducted in reality.

A consistent theme across the Rules is the emphasis on efficiency and adaptability. From the expanded role of emergency arbitration to the revised approach to time limits and case management, the new framework gives tribunals and institutions greater latitude to tailor proceedings to the needs of each case.

The Rules also mark a clear move toward digitalisation and procedural modernisation, notably through electronic communications, electronic signature of awards and more flexible notification mechanisms. These developments align the ICC framework with current arbitral practice and contribute to a more streamlined conduct of proceedings.

At the same time, the revisions strengthen transparency and safeguards, particularly in areas such as arbitrator disclosure, confidentiality and governance. By incorporating established practices into the Rules and clarifying institutional roles, the ICC reinforces predictability while maintaining a high level of user confidence.

The 2026 Rules strike a careful balance between codification and flexibility, confirming the ICC’s pragmatic approach: setting clear parameters where needed, while preserving sufficient discretion for parties and tribunals to shape the arbitration process.

In that respect, the 2026 Rules are less a transformation than a refinement, one that showcases the ICC’s position at the forefront of international arbitration.