The ICC Arbitration Rules 2026: Practical Implications Every Arbitration Practitioner Should Know

The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has long been regarded as one of the world’s leading arbitral institutions. Its Rules of Arbitration have evolved over time to reflect the changing needs of international commerce, balancing procedural fairness with the commercial reality that parties increasingly expect disputes to be resolved efficiently and cost-effectively.

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules continue that evolution. For practitioners, the amendments are more than procedural updates. They influence how disputes should be assessed at the outset, how arbitration clauses should be drafted, how procedural strategies should be developed and, ultimately, how cases should be conducted before an arbitral tribunal.

This article considers some of the most significant amendments introduced by the 2026 Rules.

1. The End of Mandatory Terms of Reference

One of the most notable changes introduced by the 2026 Rules is the removal of the mandatory requirement for Terms of Reference (“ToR”) in most ICC arbitrations.

Under the 2021 Rules, once the tribunal had been constituted, the parties and the tribunal were required to prepare and sign the Terms of Reference. The document identified the parties, summarised their claims, listed the issues to be determined and recorded certain procedural matters before the arbitration could move forward.

Tribunals are now expected to identify the issues and organise the proceedings through the Initial Case Management Conference and subsequent procedural orders. The tribunal retains the flexibility to prepare a document similar to the former Terms of Reference where appropriate, but this is no longer the default position.

Although the Terms of Reference are no longer mandatory, practitioners should not underestimate the importance of the first Case Management Conference.

Issues that would previously have been addressed during the preparation of the ToR will now need to be raised proactively. Counsel who arrives at the conference with a clear procedural strategy are likely to shape the course of the arbitration far more effectively than those who rely on procedural orders to evolve organically.

2. Expedited Arbitration

The ICC first introduced the Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”) in 2017 to provide parties with a faster and more cost-effective alternative to standard arbitration. Under the 2026 Rules, the scope of the EPP has been expanded by increasing the monetary threshold for its automatic application from USD 3 million to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. The EPP may also apply where the parties expressly agree to its application, irrespective of the amount in dispute. Arbitration agreements concluded before 1 June 2026 remain subject to the previous thresholds.

The increase in the threshold is more than a numerical adjustment. It means that a greater number of commercial disputes will now fall within the expedited framework by default. However, the automatic application of the EPP is not absolute. Even where the applicable threshold is met, the ICC Court retains the discretion to determine that the Expedited Procedure is inappropriate in the particular circumstances of the case.

The Expedited Procedure incorporates several features designed to streamline the arbitration process and reduce the time and costs associated with resolving disputes. These include:

1. the ICC Court’s power to appoint a sole arbitrator notwithstanding any contrary provision in the arbitration agreement;
2. an Initial Case Management Conference to be held within 15 days of the arbitral tribunal receiving the case file;
3. broad procedural discretion for the tribunal, including limiting document production, written submissions and witness evidence where appropriate;
4. the ability to determine the dispute solely on the basis of the documents submitted, without holding a hearing or examining witnesses or experts, where appropriate; and
5. a requirement that the final award be rendered within six months from the date of the Initial Case Management Conference, unless that period is extended by the ICC.

Collectively, these features are intended to enable disputes to be resolved more efficiently while preserving the parties’ right to fair hearing.

The expansion of the EPP is therefore likely to have practical implications beyond procedural efficiency. Parties negotiating arbitration agreements should now consider, at the contract drafting stage, whether the Expedited Procedure is suitable for the types of disputes they anticipate. While many straightforward commercial disputes are well suited to the EPP, parties involved in technically complex, multi-party or document-intensive disputes may wish to expressly opt out and preserve the flexibility afforded by the ordinary ICC arbitration procedure.

3. Highly Expedited Arbitration

One of the most innovative features of the 2026 ICC Rules is the introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”). Designed for disputes capable of being resolved within a significantly compressed timeframe, the procedure offers parties an even faster alternative to the existing Expedited Procedure.

The introduction of HEAP reflects the recognition that not every commercial dispute requires the full procedural framework of a conventional arbitration. Many disputes arise from relatively straightforward issues, such as unpaid invoices, pricing adjustments, commission claims or the interpretation of a limited number of contractual provisions, which may not justify lengthy pleadings, extensive document production or multiple hearings.

Unlike the Expedited Procedure, which applies automatically where the amount in dispute falls below the applicable threshold (unless the parties opt out), the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions apply only where the parties have agreed to adopt them. The procedure is therefore intended as an optional mechanism for parties seeking the fastest possible resolution of suitable disputes.

The claimant is required to file its Request for Arbitration together with its Statement of Claim and, to the extent possible, the evidence on which it intends to rely. Similarly, the respondent must file its Answer, Statement of Defence, any Counterclaim and supporting evidence within the prescribed time limits. This front-loaded approach enables the arbitral tribunal to identify the issues in dispute at an early stage and avoid the multiple rounds of submissions commonly seen in ordinary arbitrations.

The procedure is further streamlined through several additional features, including:

1. determination of the dispute by a sole arbitrator;
2. no joinder of additional parties or consolidation of related arbitrations;
3. an Initial Case Management Conference within seven days of the tribunal receiving the case file;
4. broad discretion for the tribunal to limit document production, written submissions and witness evidence;
5. the ability to determine the dispute solely on the basis of the documents submitted, without an oral hearing where appropriate; and
6. a requirement that the final award be rendered within three months of the Initial Case Management Conference, unless the ICC President grants an extension.

The 2026 Rules expressly permit the procedure to be discontinued where the parties agree that it should no longer apply or where the ICC Court, after consulting the parties and the arbitral tribunal, concludes that the dispute is no longer suitable for resolution under the Highly Expedited Procedure.

In such circumstances, the Court may direct that the arbitration continue under either the Expedited Procedure Provisions or the ordinary ICC Rules. Unless the Court considers it necessary to replace or reconstitute the tribunal, the existing arbitrator will remain in place.

Comparison of Expedited Procedure (EPP) with Highly Expedited Procedure (HEAP)

4. Early Determination

One of the most significant procedural developments in the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules is the express introduction of Early Determination.

Simply put, the mechanism allows an arbitral tribunal to dispose of certain claims, without requiring the parties to complete the entire arbitration, where it is clear that the issue has no realistic prospect of succeeding.

Under the 2021 Rules, ICC tribunals were generally considered to possess an inherent power to dismiss manifestly unmeritorious claims. However, because that power was not expressly provided for in the Rules, tribunals often exercised it cautiously, mindful of potential due process challenges and the risk that an award could later be challenged on the basis that a party had not been afforded a full opportunity to present its case.

The 2026 Rules address this uncertainty by expressly empowering tribunals to determine, at an early stage, whether:

1. a claim or defence is manifestly without legal merit; or
2. a claim or defence is manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction

5. Emergency Arbitration

In many commercial disputes, waiting for the arbitral tribunal to be constituted is simply not an option. A party may need urgent relief to prevent assets from being dissipated, preserve critical evidence, protect confidential information or maintain the status quo before the arbitration can proceed.

To address these situations, the ICC Rules provide for the appointment of an Emergency Arbitrator.

The 2026 Rules introduce two significant changes to the Emergency Arbitrator provisions.

(a) Emergency Relief May Be Sought Against a Wider Category of Parties

Under the 2021 Rules, emergency arbitration was generally available only against parties that were clearly bound by the arbitration agreement.

The 2026 Rules adopt a broader approach. Emergency proceedings may now also be commenced against a party where the ICC President is satisfied, on a prima facie basis, that the arbitration agreement may be binding on that party. The final determination of jurisdiction remains a matter for the arbitral tribunal, but this amendment enables urgent interim relief to be considered without waiting for that issue to be conclusively determined.

(b) Preliminary Orders Before Notice

The second important amendment concerns the introduction of preliminary orders in emergency arbitrator proceedings.

As a general rule, arbitration is founded on the principle that each party should have an opportunity to present its case before a decision is made. However, in exceptional circumstances, giving advance notice of an application for emergency relief may defeat its very purpose.

For example, if a party becomes aware that emergency measures are being sought, it may seek to transfer assets, dispose of evidence or otherwise frustrate the effectiveness of the requested relief before the application can be determined.

To address this concern, the 2026 Rules permit a party, at any stage of the emergency arbitrator proceedings, to request a preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the emergency application. The request may be made and decided without prior notice to the respondent. Once the Emergency Arbitrator has decided the request, the application and the request for the preliminary order must be transmitted to the other parties without delay. If a preliminary order is granted, the respondent must be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case promptly thereafter, and the Emergency Arbitrator may confirm, modify or revoke the order.

6. Disclosure Standard for Arbitrators

One of the fundamental principles of international arbitration is that every dispute must be decided by an independent and impartial tribunal. To safeguard that principle, arbitrators are required to disclose any facts or circumstances that might reasonably give rise to doubts about their independence or impartiality before accepting their appointment.

The 2021 Rules already required arbitrators to disclose circumstances that might call into question their independence or impartiality. However, they did not provide clear guidance on what an arbitrator should do where they were uncertain whether a particular circumstance required disclosure.

The 2026 Rules adopt a clearer and more transparent approach by making it clear that, where there is doubt, disclosure should generally be made. In other words, rather than asking “Can I avoid disclosing this?”, arbitrators are encouraged to ask “Would it be better to disclose this and allow the parties to assess its significance?” The amendment therefore does not impose a new substantive obligation. Instead, it promotes greater openness by encouraging uncertainty to be resolved in favour of disclosure.

The 2026 Rules also strengthen the disclosure framework by placing corresponding obligations on the parties themselves. When submitting a Request for Arbitration, Answer, Request for Joinder, Answer to a Request for Joinder, or certain requests for an extension of time, each party must provide the Secretariat with a list of the persons and entities that it believes prospective arbitrators and arbitrators should consider for disclosure purposes, together with the reasons why those persons or entities may be relevant. In addition, parties are required to promptly disclose the existence and identity of any non-party funder that has entered into an arrangement to finance the claims or defences and that has an economic interest in the outcome of the arbitration.

Taken together, these amendments reinforce the ICC’s commitment to transparency by assisting arbitrators in identifying potential conflicts at an early stage and reducing the likelihood of later challenges to the tribunal’s independence or impartiality.

7. Confidentiality

Confidentiality remains one of the principal advantages of international arbitration. Businesses often favour arbitration over court litigation because commercially sensitive information, including trade secrets, pricing strategies, financial records and proprietary technology, is generally protected from public disclosure.

The 2026 ICC Rules reinforce this principle by introducing an express confidentiality obligation for arbitrators and extending that obligation to tribunal secretaries. However, the Rules do not impose a corresponding general duty of confidentiality on the parties.

Accordingly, where confidentiality is of particular commercial importance, parties should consider incorporating express confidentiality provisions into their arbitration agreement or seeking appropriate confidentiality orders during the proceedings.

Looking Ahead: Practical Considerations for Counsel

Although the 2026 amendments are evolutionary, they require practitioners to reconsider several aspects of arbitration strategy.

At the contract drafting stage, parties should assess whether the Expedited Procedure is appropriate for the types of disputes likely to arise under their agreements. Where confidentiality is a particular concern, additional contractual protections may be advisable.

Once a dispute arises, counsel should prepare for a more proactive approach to early case management. The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference, the availability of Early Determination and the expanded procedural flexibility available to tribunals all point towards earlier strategic decision-making.

Equally, parties should approach disclosure and conflict management with greater diligence, recognising that transparency is increasingly viewed as essential to maintaining confidence in international arbitration.

For practical guidance and deeper insights into the latest ICC Arbitration Rules and their implications for international arbitration, connect with Merline Dsouza at merline@alsuwaidi.ae