The 2026 ICC Rules of Arbitration (“Revised Rules”) entered into force on June 1, 2026, and supersede the 2021 ICC Rules of Arbitration (“Previous Rules”). The Revised Rules do not apply retroactively. The Revised Rules govern the administration of cases submitted to the ICC International Court of Arbitration on or after June 1, 2026 (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 1(2)). Arbitration cases filed before that date remain subject to the rules in effect at the time of filing.
This note summarizes the key changes introduced by the Revised Rules and their practical implications for arbitrations governed by the Revised Rules.
Key changes
Terms of Reference
Under the Previous Rules, the Terms of Reference (“ToR”) were a mandatory step under Article 23. Once the ToR were signed or approved by the ICC Court, the parties were not permitted to raise new claims falling outside their scope unless authorized by the arbitral tribunal.
Removal of ToR as a mandatory step: The Revised Rules eliminate ToR as a mandatory stage of ICC arbitration. Nonetheless, arbitral tribunals retain the discretion to prepare ToR where they consider them conducive to the effective management of the proceedings (ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026). This amendment appears to be informed by the ICC’s experience under the Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”), introduced in 2017, under which ToR were likewise not required. Notably, of the more than 1,000 cases administered under EPP to date, fewer than 25 tribunals elected to draw up ToR (ICC, Moving Beyond Mandatory Terms of Reference, 15 May 2026). Prior to this change, the arbitral tribunal was required to prepare and transmit ToR to the ICC Court within 30 days of receiving the file, though extensions were frequently granted (id.).
This development correspondingly elevates the role of the Case Management Conference (“CMC”), which remains mandatory under Article 24 of the Revised Rules and is required to be convened within 30 days of the tribunal’s receipt of the file (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 24(1)). The procedural timetable, whether settled during the initial CMC or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter, is now to be transmitted to the ICC Secretariat rather than the ICC Court, although institutional supervision remains preserved (id., Art. 24(2)). Following the initial CMC, no party may submit new claims without the tribunal’s authorization (id., Art. 25). In practice, the CMC now becomes the central procedural milestone for structuring the proceedings and ensuring efficiency from the outset (ICC, Moving Beyond Mandatory Terms of Reference, 15 May 2026).
Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP)
To promote speedy and efficient dispute resolution, the Revised Rules introduce opt-in Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”) under Article 33 (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 33). HEAP requires a final award within 3 months of the initial CMC (id., Appendix VI, Art. 7). Under Appendix VI, a sole arbitrator hears HEAP disputes and has discretion to decide the case solely on the basis of written submissions (id., Appendix VI, Art. 6(3)). If the parties fail to jointly nominate an arbitrator within 20 days, the Court will appoint one (id., Appendix VI, Art. 4(2)). HEAP is most suitable for lower-complexity commercial disputes, claims with a simple factual matrix, or discrete aspects of a dispute requiring swift resolution (ICC, Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions, 21 May 2026). Parties may also agree to receive an award without reasons, a novel feature that can reduce time and costs (id.).
Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP)
The Expedited Procedure Provisions were introduced by the ICC in 2017 to improve efficiency through the default appointment of a sole arbitrator, shorter procedural timelines, and streamlined hearing and submission requirements (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Appendix V). Under EPP, an award must be rendered within 6 months of the initial CMC (id., Appendix V, Art. 4). Since their introduction, the ICC has administered over 1,000 cases under EPP, resulting in almost 600 awards (ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026).
Under the Revised Rules, the monetary threshold for the automatic application of EPP has increased to US$4 million (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Appendix V, Art. 1(3)). This is the case for arbitration agreements concluded on or after June 1, 2026. Given that in 2025 alone, over 40% of ICC cases did not exceed US$4 million, this adjustment broadens the range of disputes eligible for expedited arbitration (ICC, EPP and Emergency Arbitration, 19 May 2026). ICC Court President Claudia Salomon states that the increase in threshold reflects the rising value of international commercial disputes and the confidence that businesses, states and state entities have developed in ICC proceedings (ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026). Other procedural features regarding EPP remain unchanged, and the parties remain free to choose whether their case is conducted through EPP even if the case is eligible for automatic application of expedited procedure provisions (id.).
Emergency Arbitration
The Emergency Arbitrator Provisions (“EA”) were introduced in 2012 and apply to arbitration agreements concluded on or after January 1, 2012. The EA mechanism is designed to provide parties with access to urgent interim or conservatory relief before the arbitral tribunal is formally constituted. Because constituting a full tribunal can take weeks or even months, parties may face risks during that interval that require immediate protective measures.
The Revised Rules bring greater clarity to the EA mechanism, with a particular focus on identifying who can be on the receiving end of an urgent relief application. Relief can now be sought against: (i) those who signed the underlying arbitration agreement, (ii) their successors, or (iii) any other party that the President is persuaded, based on the information contained in the application, that they may be bound by an arbitration agreement (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Appendix IV, Art. 1(2)).
This last category is a product of lessons learned from nearly three hundred EA applications processed since the EA procedure was first made available in 2012 (ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026). Corporate disputes today frequently involve multi-layered group structures and tangled factual backgrounds. Article 1(7) of Appendix IV therefore gives the ICC Court President the authority to evaluate, using the information filed with the emergency relief request, whether an arbitration clause could extend to a given party (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Appendix IV, Art. 1(7)). This avoids shutting the door on time-sensitive interim relief while leaving the full jurisdictional and admissibility questions to be resolved definitively by both the emergency arbitrator and, ultimately, the tribunal hearing the merits (ICC, EPP and Emergency Arbitration, 19 May 2026).
Another notable addition is the express provision for preliminary orders during EA proceedings. Under Article 7 of Appendix IV, a party may, at any stage, seek a preliminary order preventing another party from taking steps that would undermine the relief being sought (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Appendix IV, Art. 7(1)). When the situation demands it, these requests can be made and determined without the other side being informed beforehand; a mechanism designed for scenarios such as asset dissipation or evidence being destroyed (ICC, EPP and Emergency Arbitration, 19 May 2026).
Safeguards are built in to protect procedural fairness and due process once a preliminary order is issued. The emergency arbitrator must promptly give every other party a meaningful opportunity to be heard (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Appendix IV, Art. 7(4)). The emergency arbitrator expressly retains the authority to modify or withdraw the order after considering any further arguments or evidence (id.).
Truncated tribunal
Where an arbitrator has died or been removed by the Court pursuant to Articles 16(1) or 16(3), Article 16(5) of the Revised Rules expands the ICC Court’s authority to continue proceedings with a truncated tribunal rather than appointing a replacement arbitrator (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 16(5)). The decision to proceed with the remaining members of the tribunal may now be made after the last hearing or the filing of the last substantive submissions, whichever is later (id.).
The ICC Court, in making such decision, is required to consider the opinions of the remaining arbitrators and the parties, along with any other factors it deems relevant given the circumstances.
Under the Previous Rules, article 15(5) thereof, the decision to continue proceedings with a truncated tribunal was available only after the proceedings had been formally closed (ICC Rules of Arbitration 2021, Art. 15(5)).
Under Article 34 of the Revised Rules, the President of the ICC Court now fixes (and may extend) the time limit for rendering the final award based on the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 34). This replaces the longstanding default six-month time limit from the Terms of Reference, which was rarely applied in practice as procedural timetables typically extended beyond that timeframe (ICC, Written Communications, Time Limits and Confidentiality, 29 May 2026).
Fees and costs
The Revised Rules now house all information regarding ICC Arbitration fees and costs within the Schedule of Fees (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Appendix III). To improve administrative efficiency, the Secretary General has assumed responsibility for fixing advances on costs and managing other financial matters, though the ICC Court retains authority over setting arbitrators’ fees and ICC administrative expenses (ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026).
Several provisions that were formerly found only in the Note have been elevated into the Rules themselves to promote transparency. These cover areas such as accepting funding from third parties, the mechanism by which arbitrators seek advance payments, and compensation arrangements for tribunal secretaries.
The US dollar fee scales for institutional administrative expenses have been recalibrated. Parties involved in disputes worth less than US$10,000,000 will benefit from lower costs, in furtherance of ICC’s mission to ensure affordable access to justice (ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026). At the higher end, targeted upward adjustments have been introduced for the first time since 2010 to better reflect the growing magnitude of cross-border disputes (id.).
Early Determination
Article 30 of the Revised Rules provides that parties can now apply for early determination rulings by the arbitral tribunal in cases where they believe a claim or defense is manifestly without merit or outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 30). This mechanism presents another tool that can be used during ICC arbitration to resolve the dispute in a speedier and more effective manner (ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026).
The inclusion of early determination in the Revised Rules reflects this efficiency objective. Early determination had long formed part of ICC arbitral practice since October 2017, with guidance set out in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals (the “Note”) (ICC, Early Determination, 27 May 2026). The 2026 Rules elevate this mechanism into the Rules themselves, removing any remaining doubt about an arbitral tribunal’s power to use this tool (id.).
For clients with ICC arbitration clauses, early determination offers a mechanism to dispose of meritless claims or defenses at an early stage, potentially saving significant time and costs.
Written Communications
In order to improve efficiency of ICC arbitration, the Revised Rules provide that written communications are to be made through electronic means as the default rule (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 3(1)). Written communications will be made in electronic form, unless a party explicitly requests confirmation of receipt or delivery of hard copies (id., Art. 3(2)). According to Article 38(1) of the Revised Rules, the arbitral tribunal may sign the award electronically, in counterparts or request the ICC secretariat to notify the award in paper or electronic format or any other form permitted by law (id., Art. 38(1)).
Recognizing developments in the technological landscape, the ICC has introduced a new centralized digital case management platform: ICC Case Connect, powered by Opus 2 (ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026). The platform enables parties to communicate and share case documents securely and efficiently through a dedicated case space. The ICC encourages parties and arbitral tribunals to use the digital platform, though the extent of its use remains at their discretion (id.).
For clients with ICC arbitration clauses, the focus on electronic communications should contribute to more timely and efficient dispute resolution. However, even with a centralized document sharing platform, clients should ensure that their electronic communications are secure, as digital transmission may present cybersecurity risks.
Confidentiality
Article 12(8) of the Revised Rules establishes a general duty on arbitrators to maintain the confidentiality of all matters relating to the arbitration, subject to certain exceptions: (i) where the information is already in the public domain, (ii) where the parties have agreed otherwise, (iii) where disclosure is required by applicable law, or (iv) where it is necessary to protect a legal right or fulfil disclosure obligations (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 12(8)). The confidentiality obligations applicable to the ICC Court and the Secretariat remain unchanged (ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026).
The Revised Rules preserve the parties’ ability to define the degree of confidentiality that applies to their arbitration. This can be done when they first agree to arbitrate or at any subsequent stage of the proceedings (ICC, Written Communications, Time Limits and Confidentiality, 29 May 2026). Article 23(3) of the Revised Rules, which is carried over without amendment, empowers the tribunal to issue orders, at the request of any party, concerning the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings or any related matters (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 23(3)). The tribunal may also take measures to safeguard trade secrets and other confidential information (id.).
Arbitrator independence and impartiality
The 2026 ICC Rules aim to clarify the understanding around disclosure. While the Revised Rules maintain their original ICC Arbitration standard of disclosure, Article 12(2) provides that if a prospective arbitrator has any doubts about whether to make a disclosure in relation to their independence or impartiality, it shall be resolved in favour of disclosure (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 12(2)). This means according to Article 12(4) that an arbitrator’s disclosure in and of itself does not show a lack of independence or impartiality, and therefore such disclosure does not automatically mean an admission of conflict by the prospective arbitrator (id., Art. 12(4)). These principles were previously set out in the Note but have now been elevated to the Rules themselves (ICC, Arbitrator Disclosure, 7 May 2026). These rules have been implemented by the ICC to encourage prompt and full disclosure, making the arbitral process more effective, by providing reassurance to prospective arbitrators (ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026).
Additionally, Article 12(5) assists arbitrators with their disclosures by requiring the parties to submit a list of persons and entities whom they believe the arbitrator should consider, together with reasons for their inclusion (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 12(5)). However, the ultimate responsibility for disclosures remains with the arbitrators (ICC, Arbitrator Disclosure, 7 May 2026).
Article 14(2) of the Revised Rules also empowers the Secretary General to refer decisions on whether to confirm an arbitrator to the ICC Court, even in the absence of an objection to confirmation (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 14(2); ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026).
Article 44 of the Revised Rules permits the arbitral tribunal, after consulting with the parties, to appoint a tribunal secretary (ICC Rules of Arbitration, Art. 44(1)). The tribunal secretary works under the control and direction of the arbitral tribunal, which may not delegate its decision-making authority (id.). The tribunal secretary must satisfy the same independence and impartiality requirements as arbitrators and must sign a statement to that effect before appointment (id., Art. 44(2) (ICC Court Introduction to the 2026 Rules, 22 May 2026).
The ICC has implemented these disclosure rules to make the process more effective while minimizing the risk of procedural complications.
For clients operating under ICC Arbitration clauses, these enhanced disclosure requirements may make it more difficult to successfully challenge an arbitrator on grounds of lack of independence or impartiality, as arbitrators are encouraged to disclose more freely without entailing disclosure will be treated as an admission of conflict. However, the content of a disclosure may also reveal circumstances that warrant a challenge; disclosure protects the arbitrator from adverse inference but does not immunize the underlying facts from scrutiny.
