Previously, in April 2026, we covered the Executive Board of the International Chamber of Commerce’s ICC announcement that a revision of its Arbitration Rules had been approved on 23 March 2026, and was set to enter into force on 1 June 2026. At the time, the ICC had not yet published the full text of the updated rules, nor revealed the true extent of the revision. The full text of the «2026 Rules» has now been released.
What do the 2026 Rules change?
The new Rules modify some of the pre-existing provisions and institutions with the clear aim of streamlining proceedings, enhancing procedural efficiency, and increasing the flexibility and adaptability of the Rules. Notable examples include:
– The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference. As anticipated in March, the Terms of Reference are no longer a necessary step, although arbitral tribunals retain the discretion to establish them where appropriate as a useful case management tool. The key elements that used to be set forth in the Terms of Reference are now to be introduced in Procedural Order no. 1, as was already the case in the Expedited Procedure, wherein the Terms of Reference were not mandatory. The ICC Secretariat is currently working on a model Procedural Order no. 1 to assist arbitrators and parties in this transition.
– The role previously played by the Terms of Reference is passed through also to the Case Management Conference (“CMC”). The CMC now marks the procedural milestone after which the introduction of new claims is subject to the arbitral tribunal’s prior authorisation.
– The Expedited Procedure threshold has been raised to USD 4 million. Given that over 40% of ICC cases handled in 2025 did not exceed that threshold, this adjustment broadens the range of disputes eligible for expedited arbitration. Parties remain free to request that their case should (or should not) be conducted under the Expedited Procedure regardless of whether this threshold is met.
– The previous default time limit to render the final award of six months from the signature of the Terms of Reference is replaced with a discretionary time limit to be fixed by the President (of the ICC, not the arbitral tribunal) and to be subsequently extended in consideration of the established procedural timetable, as established in Article 34. As anticipated by Claudia Salomon (President), “in practice, most arbitrations will continue to operate under time limits aligned with the procedural timetable, as was already the prevailing approach under previous editions of the Rules,” where “the default time limit was rarely applied.”
– The subjective scope of Emergency Arbitration is extended beyond the parties to the arbitration agreement and their successors to include, in the words of the new Rules, “any party for which the President is satisfied, based on information in the Application, that an arbitration binding such party may exist.” Cases where this extension would be applicable can include, in the words of the President, disputes involving “complex corporate structures and fact patterns.”
As regards the scrutiny of the award by the Court, the wording of Article 37.3 has been slightly amended to include “validity and enforceability” among the aspects to be considered by the Court—whereas the 2021 Rules referred only to the requirements of mandatory law.
Other modifications include, regarding timings, a more express regulation of the parties’ ability to modify (i.e. both shorten and extend) time limits by agreement (Article 4.2) and an increase in the correction period from 30 to 45 days (Article 39.1). Regarding costs, the scales of ICC administrative expenses have been adjusted by reducing the costs for disputes under USD 10,000,000 and, for larger disputes, by introducing targeted upward adjustments—including an increase of the cap, from USD 150,000 to USD 180,000—for the first time since 2010.
Also noteworthy, the list of case management techniques—previously contained in Appendix IV of the 2021 Rules—has been removed. As a result, the earlier Article 22.2, now Article 23.2, refers to «the case management techniques described in the guidance notes issued by the Secretariat, taking into account the work of the Commission on Arbitration and ADR,” rather than to Appendix IV. The list has been removed “to ensure the case management techniques can be more easily updated to reflect evolving practice”, as anticipated by the President. To this aim, Secretariat will issue updated guidance, taking into account the work of the Commission on Arbitration and ADR.
Matters like multiparty and multicontract arbitration, as well as joinder and consolidation, are largely preserved under the 2026 Rules, with only limited consequential adjustments, mainly to reflect the removal of Terms of Reference and the enhanced disclosure requirements (e.g. conflict lists and expanded third-party funding disclosure).
What do the 2026 Rules bring?
The new Rules go far beyond a mere adjustment of the pre-existing regulation, for they also include new mechanisms and procedural tools aimed at further expediting proceedings, strengthening the effectiveness of interim relief, and enhancing transparency in the constitution of arbitral tribunals. Key additions include:
Highly Expedited Arbitration
As anticipated in March, among the most notable procedural innovations is the introduction of a new set of opt-in provisions designed to be even more expedited than the pre-existing Expedited Procedure: the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions ( HEAP).
HEAP is designed to accelerate the procedure from the outset by requiring parties to frontload their case and file the Statement of Claim together with the Request for Arbitration (and, similarly, the Statement of Defence with the Answer). Parties have 20 days (rather than the standard 30) to agree on the sole arbitrator; failing agreement, the ICC Court will appoint it directly. The time limit for the sole arbitrator—multi-member tribunals are excluded from HEAP—to render the award is three months from the initial case management conference, which must take place within seven days of the sole arbitrator’s receipt of the case file. The three-month time limit encompasses not only the drafting of the award but also the Court’s scrutiny and the notification of the award to the parties. HEAP adopts the same cost scale as the Expedited Procedure, meaning parties benefit from lower tribunal fees.
Unlike the Expedited Procedure, there is no automatic application or threshold amount. HEAP applies on an opt-in basis, regardless of the amount in dispute, “when all parties so agree.»
One of HEAP’s more novel features is that the parties may agree to have an award without reasons, bearing in mind, however, that the absence of reasons may constitute grounds to set aside or refuse enforcement of the award notwithstanding party agreement, depending on the law applicable to recognition and enforcement (e.g. Spain).
Early Determination
Article 30 of the 2026 Rules provides that a party may apply for an early determination by the arbitral tribunal that one or more claims or defences are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. This codifies a procedure previously described in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration, available in guidance form since 2017 but now elevated to the Rules for greater visibility and legal certainty. The tribunal retains discretion to decide whether to allow the application to proceed and, if so, to adopt appropriate procedural measures after consulting the parties.
Preliminary Orders in Emergency Arbitration
For the first time, the 2026 Rules expressly acknowledge preliminary orders and provide that, at any stage of emergency arbitrator proceedings, a party may request a preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the application. Where circumstances so require, such requests may be made and decided ex parte, addressing situations where prior notification could undermine the effectiveness of the requested relief, such as asset dissipation or destruction of evidence.
If the preliminary order is granted, the emergency arbitrator must immediately afford all other parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case, reinforcing due process protections. The emergency arbitrator may modify or revoke the preliminary order in light of subsequent submissions.
Party-produced conflict lists
The previous system, under which the arbitrator was required to examine whether a conflict of interest could exist and then disclose the relevant situation, could prove insufficient in cases where the parties belong to large, complex corporate groups or structures, the full details of which could not reasonably be known by the arbitrators.
To remedy this, Article 12.5 provides that each party must submit to the Secretariat a list of persons and entities to be considered by the arbitrators when examining whether a conflict of interest exists. Nevertheless, this mechanism does not shift the disclosure obligation away from the arbitrator, who remains ultimately responsible for making any necessary disclosure. Party engagement in assisting arbitrators’ disclosure is not entirely new to ICC arbitration—the Rules already require disclosure of third-party funding arrangements—but the conflict lists extend this logic to a broader set of relationships. In practice, the lists will be incorporated into the case information document compiled by the ICC Secretariat and transmitted to prospective arbitrators for their assessment.
Other additions
Other noteworthy additions to the 2026 Rules include the express recognition of the consent award in the definition of “award” (Article 2.e), the acceptance of third-party payments upon evidence of the legal relationship with the party (Appendix III, Article 1.3), an express confidentiality duty for arbitrators (Article 12.8), the designation of the English version as the original prevailing text (Article 48), and the express regulation of the tribunal secretary (Article 44)—notably, appointing a tribunal secretary may not create any additional financial burden on the parties, and direct arrangements between the arbitral tribunal and the parties regarding the tribunal secretary’s fees are prohibited.
Looking ahead
The 2026 Rules enter into force on 1 June 2026 and will apply to all arbitrations commenced on or after that date, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.
For parties with existing ICC arbitration agreements, it should therefore be kept in mind that the 2026 Rules will apply automatically to all requests for arbitration filed on or after 1 June 2026—even if the arbitration agreement was executed earlier—unless the clause provides otherwise. Parties drafting new arbitration agreements will want to familiarise themselves with the expanded menu of procedural options now available, including the HEAP, which requires a specific opt-in clause.
In conjunction with their entry into force, the ICC Court will release translations of the 2026 Rules in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Arabic and German, as well as an updated version of its Guidance Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of ICC Arbitration.
Ontier Disputes remains available to assist with any questions regarding the new rules and their practical implications.
