The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules – Key Changes

The International Chamber of Commerce’s updated Arbitration Rules have entered into force. They will apply to any ICC arbitration commenced on or after 1 June 2026, unless the parties have agreed to submit to the Rules in effect on an earlier date. These revisions to the ICC Rules followed an extensive consultation process. The last update to the ICC Rules had been in force since January 2021.

A number of the updates bring into the body of the ICC Rules and/or clarify already established practices, while certain others introduce new procedures or requirements. We provide below a non-exhaustive review of updates with significant practical consequences.

Arbitrator Disclosures (Article 12 of the 2026 Rules)

The test for and nature of the disclosure obligation for an arbitrator is unchanged from the 2021 ICC Rules, namely, “any facts or circumstances which might be of such a nature as to call into question the arbitrator’s independence in the eyes of the parties, as well as any circumstances that could give rise to reasonable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality.”

As the ICC explains, what is new is that certain principles previously mentioned in the ICC’s Note to Parties and Arbitrators on the Conduct of the Arbitration (“ICC Note”) are now expressly included in the ICC Rules, namely: (i) that the prospective arbitrator should err on the side of disclosure as opposed to non-disclosure (Article 12(2) now stating expressly that “Any doubts the prospective arbitrator may have about whether to make a disclosure shall be resolved in favour of disclosure”), and (ii) that, as stated in Article 12(4) “A disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality.”

In effect, the biggest practical change is the new requirement on each party in Article 12(5) to submit at the very outset of its appearance in the case its lists of persons and entities “which they believe the prospective arbitrators and arbitrators should consider and the reasons thereof.” This obligation is not only imposed on the Claimant and the Respondent for their respective Request for Arbitration (“RfA”) and Answer to RfA but is also imposed on a party submitting a Request for Joinder and on any party submitting an Answer to Request for Joinder. Moreover, the obligation to submit such a list applies even to a request for extension of time to Answer submitted by a Respondent or by an Additional Party.

The combination of imposing this list obligation on the Parties and requiring them to provide the reasons for including persons and entities on their lists is clearly intended to materially improve the ability of potential arbitrators to make informed assessments as to their ability to serve in a case and to make any appropriate disclosure.

Also, considering the frequency with which Respondents or Additional Parties seek an extension of time of up to 30 days for the Answer, and the liberality with which the same is granted by the ICC (provided the Respondent nominates a co-arbitrator at the time of its extension request), the requirement of submitting such a list of persons/entities with any extension of time request will further help front-load the information-gathering for the assessment by potential arbitrators of any potential conflicts of interest.

Removal of Mandatory Terms of Reference (Articles 24-25)

The conversion of Terms of Reference from a mandatory feature of ICC Arbitration to an optional tool that may be used in the discretion of a tribunal is one of the “headline” changes made in the 2026 ICC Rules. In reality, the practical value of the ToR had indeed largely evaporated over time, with the initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”), which remains mandatory, and the Tribunal’s Procedural Order no. 1 and Procedural Timetable emerging from the CMC, taking on the greater significance. This has been borne out by the ICC’s experience since 2017 with arbitration under the Expedited Procedure Provisions, where no ToR is required and where a ToR has been drawn up by tribunals in less than 25 of the more than 1,000 cases handled under those provisions.

The limitation on a party’s ability to make new claims without an express authorization from the arbitral tribunal, which was previously pegged to the description of claims as contained in the ToR, is now pegged to the claims as they exist at the time of the initial CMC. (Article 25). The abandonment of a default time period of six-months from signature of the ToR for rendering the final award likewise is without much practical consequence, as such default time limit was almost always extended in standard ICC cases. The practice of aligning the time limit to the procedure timetable adopted in the proceeding by the tribunal and the parties, which is now endorsed by the revised Rules, has long been the actual practice.

Three practical consequences that arise from a ToR no longer being required are: (i) Parties will need to attend even more carefully to the need to include all claims in their RfA or Answer to Request, as they will not be able to rely on a required ToR as a guaranteed opportunity to refine the description of their claims several months after the filing of the RfA or Answer. (ii) The ICC has announced that its Secretariat is working on a model P.O.1 to assist parties and arbitrators, which may result in even greater harmonization than today of the style and contents of such P.O.1. (iii) If by chance any party believes that a relevant jurisdiction’s legal framework would still require a ToR or that a ToR would be advisable in a particular case as a procedural tool, it will need to be sure to request it.

Early Determination Applications, (Article 30)

The new Article 30 brings into the ICC Rules themselves a type of procedural application that was heretofore only mentioned in the ICC Note, namely, an application for Early Determination of claims or defences, on grounds that such claims or defences are “manifestly without merit” or “manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.” Article 30 leaves it in the Arbitral Tribunal’s discretion whether to allow such an application to proceed and, if so, to adopt appropriate procedural measures to handle it.

Moving this Early Determination procedure from the Note into the Rules seems intended to give it even greater significance and legitimacy than was previously the case. One of the greatest constraints on utilization of such procedure by parties, even where it has been available under ICC arbitration (as per the ICC Note) or under certain other institutional or ad hoc rules, has been the perception that many arbitral tribunals are reluctant to run the risk of granting early dismissal of a claim or defence. The feared risk being that doing so would expose the final arbitral award to challenge for alleged lack of due process and/or depriving a party of the full opportunity to present its case.

It remains to be seen whether parties and tribunals will be emboldened by this change to the ICC Rules to respectively bring or grant Early Determination applications more frequently. The ICC’s strengthened endorsement of the procedure, albeit that it is done in the interest of improving efficient resolution of disputes, does appear to add to the strength of an argument in opposition to a challenge to an award that no presumption of deprivation of due process should necessarily attach to such decisions.

Changes to Emergency Arbitration Provisions (Article 31 and Appendix IV)

Two notable changes are made to the Emergency Arbitration Provisions in Appendix IV of the ICC Rules. First, Emergency Arbitration can now be brought not only against a party signatory to the arbitration agreement or its successors (as was previously the case), but also against a non-signatory party based upon a sufficient showing in the application to the President of the ICC Court “that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist.” (App. IV, Article 1(2)). The ICC has explained this change as recognizing “the present-day realities of international trade.” Among other things, this shows the ICC’s determination to expand the ability of parties to potentially obtain from an Emergency Arbitrator relief that otherwise would need to be sought before a national court, further expanding the ability of parties to have such urgent matters decided privately as opposed to in public court proceedings.

Second, the Emergency Arbitration provisions now expressly recognize (App. IV, Article 7) what had up to now been only an implicit power of the emergency arbitrator, namely, to issue a preliminary order, even on an ex parte basis. Such preliminary order would direct the other party not to take any action that would frustrate the purpose of the Application for emergency relief. The other party must then immediately be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case, and the preliminary order may be modified or revoked by the emergency arbitrator. Known uses of such preliminary orders under the existing Emergency Arbitration provision have included, for example, orders to restrain an employer from drawing against a contractor’s bond when there is a dispute in the midst of an ongoing construction project.

Expanded Scope of Expedited Procedure (Article 32 and Appendix V)

For arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026, the default monetary threshold of the amount in dispute is expanded from US$3m to US$4m for arbitrations to be handled pursuant to the ICC’s Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”) under Appendix V to the ICC Rules. Under these provisions, among other things, a final award is to be issued within six months of the CMC. The ICC reports that over 40% of its cases in 2025 concerned amounts in dispute of US$4m or less, so this change is expected to broaden the range of disputes eligible for such treatment. Parties continue to be able to agree opt out of the EPP or to agree to submit a particular dispute involving a higher amount to these expedited procedures.

Introduction of Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (Article 33 and Appendix VI) 

The revised ICC Rules introduce Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”), in a new Appendix VI, under which the final award is to be issued within three months of the CMC. This is one of the major innovations under the 2026 ICC Rules. HEAP is purely an opt-in procedure for parties that agree to use it; it is before a sole arbitrator only; and it can apply to disputes of any financial magnitude.

The ICC expects HEAP to be most suitable for lower-complexity commercial disputes, claims with a simple factual matrix or a distinct aspect of a dispute requiring speedy resolution. To accommodate such a tight schedule, the claimant is required to file its Statement of Claim with its RfA and the respondent to file its Statement of Defence with its Answer, which submissions should be accompanied by the supporting evidence to the extent possible. The HEAP provisions expressly give the sole arbitrator discretion to, after consulting the parties, not allow requests for document production, place limitations on written submissions and written witness evidence, and decide the case without conducting a hearing. The award is normally to be reasoned, but the parties may agree to dispense with reasons, which is a novelty for ICC practice. No joinder or consolidation with other arbitrations is permitted under HEAP.

Tribunal Secretary (Article 44)

An article of the ICC Rules on Tribunal Secretaries, who work “under the arbitral tribunal’s direction and control,” is now added to the body of the ICC Rules themselves. Even though the use of a Tribunal Secretary incorporates current practice, it is now specified clearly in Article 44 that such secretaries “must satisfy the same independence, impartiality and confidentiality requirements as arbitrators under the Rules” and that they must “sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence before their appointment.” Additionally, a new Article 7 of Appendix III to the ICC Rules specifies that “[t]he arbitral tribunal may claim reimbursement of a tribunal secretary’s reasonable and justified expenses,” but that otherwise such tribunal secretary should not create any additional financial burden on the parties.

English as the Original Text of the ICC Rules (Article 48)

The 2026 ICC Rules specify that the English-language version of the Rules is the “original text” and that the English version shall prevail in case of any conflict between the English version and any translation. It had been the case some years ago that the English and French versions of the Rules were both described as being “official.” While reference to English as the “original text” had appeared in the 2021 ICC Rules pamphlet, this notion is now inserted for the first time in the body of the ICC Rules, as Article 48.

Through the 2026 updates to the ICC Rules, which are designed to further improve the transparency, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of ICC arbitration, the ICC aspires to maintain its leading position among global arbitral institutions and to strengthen the legitimacy of international arbitration more generally. Click here to access the 2026 ICC Rules.