The ICC publishes new revised rules effective from 1 June 2026

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules introduce significant reforms that will directly impact how international commercial disputes are managed, from enhanced arbitrator disclosure requirements and a new early determination mechanism to the elimination of mandatory Terms of Reference and the creation of a brand-new Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (HEAP).

Scope of Application and Electronic Communications

The 2026 Rules expressly clarify their temporal scope. A new Article 1(2) confirms that the Rules apply to any arbitration commenced on or after 1 June 2026, unless the parties have agreed to submit to an earlier version. Article 1(3) now states that the Rules include the Appendices and the Schedule of Fees, reinforcing the ICC’s commitment to transparency.

The provisions on written communications have been significantly modernised, shifting to electronic communications as the default mode. Article 3(1) now requires that communications with the Secretariat be made by email or other electronic means that create a record of sending. Hard copies of the Request, Answer and Request for Joinder are required only when a party specifically requests physical transmission or where electronic transmission is not practicable (Article 3(2)). The Rules also dovetail with ICC Case Connect, the ICC’s digital case management platform.

Arbitrator Disclosure: “When in Doubt, Disclose”

The 2026 Rules formally incorporate into the Rules two principles that previously appeared only in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals. First, any doubts a prospective arbitrator may have about whether to make a disclosure must be resolved in favour of disclosure (Article 12(2)). Second, a new Article 12(4) confirms that a disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality. This provision is designed to raise disclosure standards while reducing tactical challenges premised solely on the fact that a disclosure was made. It provides reassurance to prospective arbitrators that disclosure alone should not be understood as an admission of conflict.

A further innovation is the new obligation on parties to participate actively in identifying potential conflicts. Under Article 12(5), each party must submit to the Secretariat a list of persons and entities that prospective arbitrators should consider, together with the reasons for their inclusion. This must be done at the time of filing the Request, Answer, Request for Joinder, or related submissions.

These lists will be incorporated when the file is transmitted to prospective arbitrators. The mechanism shifts part of the burden of identifying potential conflicts to the parties, while leaving the arbitrator ultimately responsible for making any necessary disclosure. The existing duty to disclose relationships with third-party funders is preserved in Article 12(6).

Confidentiality Obligations for Arbitrators

The 2021 Rules were silent on tribunal confidentiality in the operative Articles. The 2026 Rules fill this gap: Article 12(8) now requires arbitrators to keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration, unless the information is in the public domain, the parties agree otherwise, applicable law requires disclosure, or disclosure is necessary to protect a legal right.

The ICC decided not to introduce default confidentiality of the arbitration as between the parties. Party-level confidentiality therefore still depends on agreement or a tribunal order under Article 23(3). However, the new provision codifies the expectation that the tribunal’s work is confidential and aligns with Appendix I.

Given that the 2026 Rules do not impose default confidentiality between the parties, we would continue recommending that parties who require comprehensive confidentiality protection include express confidentiality clauses in their arbitration agreements or seek a specific tribunal order at an early stage of the proceedings.

Elimination of Terms of Reference: The CMC Takes Centre Stage

One of the most visible structural changes is the removal of the tribunal’s obligation to draw up Terms of Reference (ToR). Under the 2021 Rules, the tribunal was required to prepare a document defining the parties’ details, claims, and issues, which had to be signed by all parties before the arbitration could proceed. The six-month time limit for the award ran from the last signature of the ToR.

Under the 2026 Rules, the ToR requirement is removed from the core text. The tribunal retains discretion to establish Terms of Reference as a case management tool, but it is no longer a mandatory procedural milestone. Instead, the Case Management Conference (CMC) becomes the pivotal early step. Article 24(1) requires the tribunal to hold an initial CMC within 30 days of receiving the file, to consult the parties on procedural measures. During that CMC, or as soon as possible thereafter, the tribunal must establish the procedural timetable (Article 24(2)).

Article 24(4) further empowers the tribunal to conduct further CMCs to facilitate efficient conduct of proceedings, introducing the concept of “midstream CMCs” to reassess procedure as the case evolves.

In our view, the ToR was a key and distinguishing feature of ICC arbitration that aimed at providing certainty as to the existence of arbitration agreements and the identity of the parties. Its removal as a default rule is a significant departure. That said, the elimination of the mandatory ToR will likely accelerate the early stages of the proceedings, removing a formalistic step that in practice may cause delays and increased costs. On balance, the reform is a reasonable trade-off, provided that practitioners adopt adequate safeguards. Specifically, we recommend that parties seek to include in the first procedural order (OP1), or address during the initial CMC, a formal confirmation of the existence and scope of the arbitration agreement and the parties’ acceptance of the tribunal as constituted. If this is achieved in practice, the elimination of mandatory ToR should prove beneficial, streamlining the opening phase of the arbitration without sacrificing the guarantees that the ToR traditionally afforded.

New Claims Cut-Off After the Initial CMC

The cut-off for unilateral introduction of new claims is shifted from the ToR stage to the initial CMC. Article 25 now provides that, after the initial CMC, no party may make new claims unless authorised by the arbitral tribunal. In deciding whether to allow such claims, the tribunal must consider the nature of the new claims, the stage of the arbitration, any cost implications and any other relevant circumstances.

Early Determination: A New Tool to Dismiss Meritless Claims

The 2026 Rules introduce an express early determination procedure in Article 30. Any party may apply to the tribunal for the early determination of one or more claims or defences on the grounds that they are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The tribunal determines in its discretion whether to allow the application to proceed and, if so, adopts appropriate procedural measures after consulting the parties. This is a valuable tool that reinforces the Rules’ commitment to procedural efficiency. However, it is a feature alien to ICC users in some jurisdictions, particularly where an unsuccessful early determination application may increase both time and costs. Parties should carefully assess the merits of such applications before proceeding.

Hearings, Hybrid Formats and Procedural Flexibility

The 2026 Rules maintain the tribunal’s broad powers over procedure but modernise certain aspects. Article 23(2) confirms that the tribunal may adopt such procedural measures as it considers appropriate, including case management techniques described in guidance notes issued by the Secretariat. This language replaces the former Appendix IV “Case Management Techniques,” which has been deleted to allow more flexible updating.

On hearings and deliberations, the Rules now expressly recognise hybrid and remote formats. Article 19(3) provides that the tribunal may deliberate in hybrid form or by videoconference, teleconference or other electronic communication. Article 24(5) similarly confirms that CMCs may be conducted in person, in hybrid form or by electronic means.

This is not new in practice and represents the ICC’s alignment with contemporary arbitration proceedings.

Flexible Time Limits for the Final Award

The 2021 Rules imposed a fixed six-month deadline for the final award, running from the last signature of the ToR. In practice, these limits were routinely exceeded, and the Court typically set or extended them in line with the tribunal’s procedural timetable.

The 2026 Rules abandon this model in favour of a case-specific approach. Article 34 now provides that the President shall fix the time limit for rendering the final award, taking into account the procedural timetable established pursuant to Article 24(2) or a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal.

Even though the ICC intended to ensure a more flexible approach giving parties greater predictability as to when the award will be issued, we consider this a manifest surrender of keeping ordinary proceedings within reasonable time limits. In practice, we expect that parties will increasingly incorporate specific deadlines into their arbitration agreements.

Scrutiny and Electronic Signature of Awards

The scrutiny mechanism remains essentially unchanged, but the 2026 Rules modernise signature and notification formalities. Article 38(1) now allows the tribunal, after consulting the parties, to sign the award electronically, sign in counterparts, and/or request the Secretariat to notify the award in paper or electronic format. The Secretariat must keep an original of each award in hard copy or electronically (Article 38(6)).

The time limit for corrections on the tribunal’s own initiative has been extended from 30 to 45 days (Article 39(1)), acknowledging that the tribunal must seek the parties’ comments before correcting an award. A new Article 39(5) also addresses the remission of awards by national courts, enabling the Court to take steps necessary for the tribunal to comply with remission terms.

Emergency Arbitration: Expanded Scope and Preliminary Orders

The 2026 Rules significantly refine the Emergency Arbitrator Provisions in Appendix IV, expanding their personal scope and introducing preliminary orders.

Under the 2021 Rules, emergency relief was limited to parties that were signatories of the arbitration agreement or their successors. Article 1(2) of Appendix IV in the 2026 Rules now extends application to any party for which the President is satisfied, based on information in the Application, that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist. This authorises emergency proceedings against non-signatories where there is a prima facie basis that they may be bound, reflecting the realities of complex corporate and transactional structures.

At the same time, Article 1(3)(c) of Appendix IV expressly excludes investment treaty and investment-law-based arbitrations from the emergency arbitrator regime.

The 2026 Rules also expressly acknowledge preliminary orders in emergency arbitrator proceedings. Under the new Article 7 of Appendix IV, a party may at any stage request a preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the application. Such requests may be made and decided upon without notice to all other parties (ex parte). If a preliminary order is granted, the emergency arbitrator must immediately afford all other parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case, safeguarding due process.

Preliminary orders were already usual practice in emergency arbitration. The express codification is welcomed as it provides certainty and clarity to users, particularly in cases involving risks of asset dissipation or destruction of evidence.

Tribunal Secretaries: Clarified Role and Fee Restrictions

Article 44 of the 2026 Rules and Article 7 of Appendix III now expressly address tribunal secretaries, providing that, after consulting with the parties, the tribunal may appoint a tribunal secretary to work under the tribunal’s direction and control. The Rules clarify that the tribunal may not delegate its decision-making authority to the appointed secretary. In so doing, the 2026 Rules are simply recognizing and codifying a standard practice in contemporary international arbitration.

Appendix III also provides that the tribunal may claim reimbursement of a tribunal secretary’s reasonable and justified expenses, while, otherwise, indicating that appointing a tribunal secretary shall not create any additional financial burden on the parties. Further, direct arrangements between the tribunal and the parties regarding the secretary’s fees are prohibited. This removes a source of potential cost uncertainty.

The Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP) remain a core feature of ICC arbitration

The Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP) remain a core feature of ICC arbitration. The 2026 Rules increase the EPP Threshold Amount to USD 4,000,000 for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026 (up from USD 3,000,000 for agreements concluded between 1 January 2021 and 31 May 2026). This means more disputes will automatically qualify for the streamlined expedited track, with a final award due within six months from the initial CMC.

Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP): A New Ultra-Fast Track

One of the most notable innovations of the 2026 Rules is the introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP) in Appendix VI. HEAP procedures are always subject to party agreement, and they offer an ultra-fast arbitration track for disputes that the parties wish to resolve in the shortest possible timeframe.

Under HEAP procedures, disputes are decided by a sole arbitrator. Claimants must submit a full Request and Statement of Claim (including evidence) at the outset, while Respondents have a 30-day period to submit their Answer and Statement of Defence. Further, the initial CMC must be held within 7 days of the file transmission, and the final award must be rendered within three months from the initial CMC. The joinder of additional parties and consolidation of arbitrations are not permitted.

Under HEAP procedures, the tribunal retains broad discretion over the procedure and may decide the dispute solely on documents, without hearings. No extensions of time limits may be granted unless agreed to by the parties. Finally, HEAP provisions will cease to apply if the parties agree or the Court decides they are no longer appropriate, in which case the underlying arbitration would continue under the EPP or the standard Rules.

How Can We Help?

Cuatrecasas’ International Arbitration team advises clients across all major arbitral institutions and jurisdictions. If you would like to discuss how the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules affect your existing arbitration clauses or dispute resolution strategy, please do not hesitate to contact us.