The ICC Rules of Arbitration are a widely used framework for resolving cross-border disputes through institutional arbitration. The new 2026 ICC Rules of Arbitration (the “2026 Rules”) will enter into force on 1 June 2026 and apply to arbitrations commenced on or after that date.
The key change in the 2026 Rules is the introduction of procedures aimed at promoting procedural efficiency, earlier case definition and the swift resolution of arbitrations. In this respect, the changes address directly the criticism most raised by users of arbitration in recent years: namely delays, poor case management and the lack of procedural innovation by tribunals.
Set out below are the key changes and the principal implications for users of ICC arbitration.
1. Removal of mandatory Terms of Reference and elevation of the first Case Management Conference
In a significant change, the 2026 Rules remove the requirement for the tribunal to issue Terms of Reference. Historically, the Terms of Reference have been one of the key features of ICC arbitration. They are issued by the tribunal early on in ICC arbitration proceedings and record the parties, claims, relief sought and certain key procedural matters, effectively crystallising the claims and relief that the tribunal is required to address. The Terms of Reference also needed approval by the ICC Court in order for the arbitration to proceed.
Many users of ICC arbitration saw the Terms of Reference as unnecessary, and a step that adds additional unwanted cost to proceedings. The 2026 Rules remove their mandatory status and shift the centre of gravity in the early stages of the arbitration to the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”).
Article 24 requires the first CMC to be convened within 30 days of the arbitral tribunal receiving the case file. The first CMC is also the cut-off date for the introduction of new claims without the tribunal’s permission. The practical consequence is that parties must arrive at the first CMC with a clearer view of their procedural priorities, evidential needs and overall case theory.
2. Express formalisation of early determination
Article 30 expressly empowers arbitral tribunals to determine claims or defences on an early basis where they are “manifestly without merit” or “manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction”.
This change reflects the position in many domestic legal systems, and under other arbitral rules, where decision makers can finally determine at an early stage, and on a summary basis, contested jurisdictional or merits points. The “manifestly without merit” standard mirrors that used in the LCIA and ICSID Rules.
The value of early determination lies in the early dismissal of clearly unmeritorious claims, thereby promoting procedural efficiency. Tribunals convened under the ICC Rules have always had wide case management powers, including the ability to dismiss claims at an early stage on a summary basis. The new Article 30 is important in stating that expressly and in articulating the dismissal standard.
In practice, however, parties are likely to find that the threshold that must be reached to achieve a dismissal is high. Furthermore, arbitrators will be wary of potential due process challenges being made by the losing party on the basis that they did not have the opportunity to make a full presentation of their case, with the benefit of the evidentiary record. Both of those factors may limit the success of the early determination procedure.
3. Expansion of the Expedited Procedure and introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure
Under the 2026 Rules, the Expedited Procedure Provisions, which provide for a streamlined and quick procedure, will apply automatically to disputes valued at up to USD 4 million (an increase from the USD 3million threshold in the 2021 Rules). Again, this reflects the focus of the 2026 changes on procedural efficiency.
One of the most significant innovations in the 2026 Rules is the opt-in Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (“HEAP”). Unlike the Expedited Procedure, HEAP is not triggered by any monetary threshold and may only be adopted through the consent of the parties, either in the arbitration agreement or later, once a dispute has arisen.
The key features of HEAP include:
- A sole arbitrator.
- A highly compressed timetable of just three months (including the period for drafting the award and its notification to the parties by the ICC).
- The ability to dispense with a merits hearing with the arbitrator and instead determine the case based solely on documents.
- The ability of the parties to consent to an award issued without reasons for the decision.
The advantage of HEAP is that it leads to the quick issuance of an arbitral award that is enforceable internationally under the New York Convention. This is a key consideration for parties in some instances. In the construction industry, for example, dispute boards and adjudication are common ways that disputes are decided early on, leading to the issuance of decision by the dispute board or adjudicator. Those decisions, however, are not enforceable as an award for the purpose of the New York Convention, and a mechanism is needed to convert the decision into an international award quickly in instances of non-compliance.
HEAP will be particularly appropriate for “compliance arbitrations” that are brought to convert the decision of a dispute board or adjudicator into an internationally enforceable award as quickly as possible.
There may be other kinds of disputes that are suitable for HEAP arbitrations, for example, cases that turn on a single and relatively straightforward issue, or very low value disputes.
Well advised parties should think very carefully about dispensing with the requirement for a reasoned decision as that could raise enforcement issues.
4. Strengthening of the emergency arbitration regime
One of the more significant changes in the 2026 Rules is the express recognition, in Article 7, of preliminary orders in emergency arbitrator proceedings. Article 7 provides that, at any stage of those proceedings, a party may request an order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the underlying application in the emergency arbitration. The Rules allow applications to be made on an ex parte basis where giving notice would risk defeating the purpose of the relief sought.
The practical significance of the changes is that emergency relief under the ICC framework may now be more effective in preserving the status quo before the emergency application itself can be fully determined. For parties facing genuine urgency, these changes make emergency arbitration a more credible route to immediate protective relief.
5. Party assistance to arbitrator disclosure
Article 12 requires each party to submit a list of persons and entities to the Secretariat for the arbitrators to consider when making their disclosure for conflicts purposes.
Challenges to arbitrators on the basis of conflict of interest have become more commonplace in arbitration in recent years. The new Article 12 should alter things by placing greater importance on the role the parties in ensuring proper disclosure by arbitrators, thereby limiting the ability of a disgruntled party to raise a late-stage attempt at disqualification of one of the arbitrators.