ICC Arbitration Rules 2026: what arbitrating parties need to know

On 15 December 2025, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Court reached a milestone when it registered its 30,000th case under the ICC Arbitration Rules (the Rules).

The first ICC Arbitration Rules were promulgated in 1922 and the Rules have been revised 14 times since then.

The latest version of the Rules came into force on 1 June 2026 (2026 Rules) and replaces the 2021 version for ICC arbitrations commenced thereafter (unless the parties agree otherwise).

The latest revisions to the Rules are intended to improve efficiency, reduce procedural complexity and enhance case management, while still preserving the flexibility, neutrality and procedural integrity of ICC arbitration.

These are very practical objectives and reflect the importance of ensuring that institutional arbitral rules are regularly reviewed to ensure they remain fit for purpose and reflect technological advances and legal and commercial developments in international arbitration.

The ICC’s website usefully provides a link to a compared version of the 2021 and 2026 Rules for those who require a detailed, comparison: 2026 Arbitration Rules - ICC - International Chamber of Commerce.

In this article, we summarise the key revisions to the Rules.

Removal of mandatory Terms of Reference

Under the 2026 Rules, the Terms of Reference (ToR) are no longer mandatory. The ToR were useful for defining the scope of the dispute, confirming jurisdictional parameters and setting out the procedural framework for the arbitration.

Notwithstanding the absence of ToR, however, the Tribunal must hold an initial case management conference (CMC) within 30 days of receiving the file and the CMC now functions as the effective cut-off point for new claims. This should focus the parties’ minds at an early stage on formulating the claims and defences they wish to rely on.

The ToR also provided a timeline for when the award should be published, namely six months after the ToR. Now, however, the President of the ICC Court determines when the award should be published, taking into account the procedural timetable.

There is also nothing to prevent the Tribunal, in consultation with the parties, agreeing a form of ToR in a particular case, where it would be useful for the efficient pursuit of proceedings.

Expedited procedures

The previous Rules incorporated automatic Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPPs) with a monetary threshold of US$3 million. The 2026 Rules maintain the EPPs but increased the threshold for automatic application to US$4 million. Parties can, however, opt out of the EPPs.

Under the EPPs, the Tribunal must publish its award within six months from the date of the initial CMC. This deadline automatically means that both the parties and the Tribunal must manage the arbitral proceedings efficiently and pro-actively.

The EPPs permit the Tribunal to dispense with certain procedural steps after consultation with the parties. However, and encouragingly, the Secretariat of the ICC Court has reported that the quality of past expedited awards has nonetheless matched that of non-expedited awards. Indeed, in suitable cases and depending on the level of complexity of the dispute, an Expedited Procedure may introduce a cost- and time-effective discipline to arbitration proceedings.

The 2026 Rules also introduce a new Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (HEAP), which is not automatic and has no monetary threshold. HEAP is available on an opt-in basis. Under HEAP, the Tribunal must render its award within three months of the CMC.

It is designed for low complexity or time sensitive disputes, involves determination by a sole arbitrator and has a curtailed procedure, with the possibility of an unreasoned award subject to party agreement.

Other arbitral institutions and bodies – LCIA, ICA, LMAA, SIAC – allow expedited procedures. The expanded EPP and HEAP should promote the ICC’s competitiveness with regard to less complex or more modest disputes that are suitable for fast-track proceedings.

Emergency Arbitration (EA) Provisions

The EA Procedure has been expanded so that it can now apply in any case where the president of the ICC Court has a prima facie belief that there is an arbitration agreement that binds the party in question. Previously, EA only applied to signatories to an arbitration agreement or their successors. This is an interesting development for cases where it is being argued that a non-party has an equitable obligation to arbitrate eg because it is seeking to enforce rights derived from the underlying contract.

The expanded EA Procedure also means that parties can now seek preliminary orders within EA proceedings to prevent the other party from frustrating the purpose of the EA application. An ex parte application may be made if notice would undermine the effectiveness of the relief sought.

Early determination

There is now an express provision permitting a party to apply to the Tribunal for the early determination of one or more claims or defences that are considered to be ’manifestly without merit’ or ’manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction’. The codification of an early determination mechanism brings the 2026 Rules in line with similar measures adopted by other leading international arbitral institutions, including LCIA, SIAC and HKIAC.

Confidentiality

Those who followed the consultation process leading up to the 2025 revision of the UK’s Arbitration Act 1996 will recall that it was ultimately decided that an express statutory confidentiality provision was not necessary. The primary reason was that English common law already provides for confidentiality of arbitrations.

Nonetheless, many arbitral rules incorporate an express duty of confidentiality although the scope of such provisions differs from one arbitral institution to another.

The 2026 Rules do not impose a default confidentiality provision on the parties but the Tribunal and parties can agree on confidentiality and the Tribunal may, at the request of any party, make a confidentiality order regarding the arbitration proceedings as a whole or in respect of any discrete matter in the arbitration, for example if it involves trade secrets or other confidential information.

There is, however, an express duty on the Tribunal to keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration, unless the parties agree otherwise or unless the Tribunal is required by the applicable law to disclose certain matters.

Given that one of the main reasons parties opt for arbitration is the confidentiality surrounding arbitration proceedings, it is perhaps unsurprising that the 2026 Rules do not impose stringent confidentiality rules.

Arbitrator disclosure requirements

The 2025 revision of the Arbitration Act 1996 codified an arbitrator’s duty to disclose circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality. This is a mandatory and continuing duty of disclosure. Therefore, the arbitrator should make the appropriate disclosure before accepting appointment and then ensure they reveal any additional relevant information during the progress of the arbitration.

This statutory codification of the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure reflects the UK Supreme Court decision in Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48 (27 November 2020), in which the Supreme Court stressed the importance of arbitrator impartiality and confirmed that arbitrators in English-seated arbitrations have a legal duty to disclose matters that could give rise to doubts as to their impartiality.

However, the statutory provision does not provide guidance on what exactly should be disclosed and what might give rise to doubt as to arbitrator impartiality.

The 2026 Rules amplify the disclosure requirements in the earlier version, stating that any doubts as to whether a disclosure should be made should be resolved in favour of disclosure, additionally that disclosure of itself does not establish any lack of independence or impartiality.

More specifically, the parties are now required to provide lists of relevant persons and entities at the outset, so as to facilitate more robust conflict checks. This information is then provided to prospective arbitrators, so they can decide what disclosures they should make.

Comment

In common with all other arbitral institutions and bodies, the ICC aims to remain competitive and to offer users a first-class arbitral procedure. Revisions to the Rules that bring flexibility and a more tailored approach to arbitral proceedings may reduce time and costs of resolving disputes in arbitration.

The ICC’s preliminary dispute resolution statistics for 2025 (published in February 2026), indicated that there were 881 new cases and 607 issued awards, with 444 of those being final awards. 169 new cases were administered under the EPP and 30 new cases began with EA applications. The aggregate values of claims pending at year end was US$299 billion.

It will be interesting to revisit the ICC statistics going forward to see what, if any, impact the 2026 Rules have on the figures.

For more information on how our International Arbitration experts can support you, contact us today.

This article was co-authored by Trainee Solicitor, Griff Gough-Walters.