2026 ICC Arbitration Rules Expand Procedural Flexibility for Commercial Disputes

On June 1, 2026, the 2026 ICC Rules of Arbitration (“2026 ICC Rules”) will come into effect and apply to all ICC arbitrations commenced on or after that date. Key changes include eliminating the Terms of Reference, expanding expedited procedures to cases up to US$ 4 million and introducing an optional highly expedited three-month procedure for simple disputes. The result is a more streamlined set of rules aimed at improving efficiency and transparency.

While the revisions do not fundamentally alter the ICC arbitration framework, they introduce several changes that companies should consider when drafting arbitration clauses and managing disputes. The most notable changes include the following:

• Eliminating Mandatory Terms of Reference: Terms of Reference (“TOR”) have traditionally been one of the defining features of ICC arbitration. Historically, the TOR has served as both a procedural roadmap and an early case-management tool, helping define the parties’ claims, the issues in dispute, and the procedural framework. The 2026 ICC Rules take a meaningful step away from the ICC’s traditional approach by eliminating the mandatory requirement for TOR. Instead, arbitral tribunals now retain discretion to establish TOR where they consider them useful as a case management tool. In making this change, the ICC noted that its expedited procedure mechanism has demonstrated that arbitrations can proceed effectively and remain recognized internationally even without the need for a TOR.
  
  As a practical matter, the removal of mandatory TOR is likely to reduce front-end procedure, while placing greater emphasis on the case management conference (“CMC”) and the parties’ initial submissions in defining and structuring the dispute at an early stage. Reflecting that shift, the 2026 ICC Rules provide that no new claims may be introduced after the CMC without the express permission of the arbitral tribunal. Requests for Arbitration and Answers are also likely to take on greater significance in defining the scope of the dispute, and the ICC itself has suggested that parties should draft these submissions with greater care and specificity in the absence of mandatory TOR.
• Raising the Expedited Procedure Monetary Threshold: ICC has widened access to expedited arbitration by increasing the monetary threshold of the maximum amount in dispute from US$3 million to US$4 million. The higher monetary threshold for automatic application of expedited procedures reflects a continuing trend among leading arbitral institutions to broaden access to streamlined proceedings.
• Introduction of Highly Expedited Procedure: The 2026 ICC Rules introduce a set of “Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions” (“HEAP”), creating a further compressed procedure for disputes requiring particularly quick resolution. Under the HEAP framework, a sole arbitrator must render a final award within three months of the initial CMC, unless the parties agree otherwise.
  
  In practical terms, HEAP is designed to operate with a substantially compressed procedure. Parties should expect tighter limits on written submissions and witness evidence, little or no document production, and, in many cases, determination of the dispute without a hearing. Unlike the ICC’s existing expedited procedure provisions, HEAP is not tied to a monetary threshold. Instead, its suitability likely will depend on the nature and complexity of the dispute, making it potentially attractive for lower-complexity disputes involving discrete issues where speed and procedural economy are priorities. Importantly, HEAP applies only where both parties expressly agree to its use. For HEAP proceedings, the 2026 ICC Rules also permit parties to agree to an unreasoned award to further accelerate the process. Parties should nevertheless consider potential enforcement implications carefully, as certain jurisdictions may treat the absence of reasons as a basis for challenging enforcement or seeking to set aside the award.
• Arbitrator Independence and Impartiality: Arbitrator independence and impartiality remain fundamental to international arbitration, with disclosure obligations playing a key role in maintaining confidence in the arbitral process. The 2026 ICC Rules introduce two notable refinements aimed at strengthening and clarifying those obligations.
  
  First, the 2026 ICC Rules expressly provide that any doubts as to whether a prospective arbitrator should make a disclosure should be resolved in favor of disclosure. Although this principle already appeared in the ICC’s Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals, its elevation into the Rules themselves underscores the ICC’s continued emphasis on transparency. The Rules also clarify that making a disclosure does not, in itself, imply a lack of independence or impartiality.
  
  Second, the 2026 ICC Rules now require parties to submit a list of persons and entities that prospective arbitrators and arbitrators should consider for disclosure purposes, together with an explanation of their relevance. In practice, this is likely to require parties to undertake more thorough internal conflict mapping at an early stage of the proceedings, particularly in complex corporate structures or disputes involving investment funds, groups of affiliated companies, or third-party interests.
• Enhanced Emergency Arbitrator Provisions: The 2026 ICC Rules introduce several changes aimed at improving the effectiveness and flexibility of the ICC’s emergency arbitration framework, which allows parties to seek urgent interim relief before the arbitral tribunal is constituted.
  
  Most notably, the 2026 ICC Rules broaden the potential scope of emergency arbitrator proceedings beyond signatories to the arbitration agreement and their successors. The ICC Court President may now permit an application to proceed where the information provided suggests that an arbitration agreement binding the relevant party may exist, even if that party is not an express signatory to the contract at issue. The change reflects the realities of modern commercial relationships and complex corporate structures, where disputes may involve affiliates or other non-signatories connected to the underlying transaction.
  
  The 2026 ICC Rules also expressly recognize the emergency arbitrator’s power to issue preliminary orders designed to prevent a party from frustrating the purpose of the application before interim relief can be fully considered. Such orders may be issued without prior notice in urgent circumstances, although the 2026 ICC Rules require that affected parties be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case promptly afterward. Emergency arbitrators also retain the authority to modify or revoke those orders prior to the transmission of the arbitration file to the arbitral tribunal.
• From a practical perspective, these changes further strengthen the ICC’s emergency relief mechanisms and may prove particularly relevant in disputes involving urgent asset protection, preservation of evidence, confidentiality concerns, or fast-moving commercial conduct.
• Express Early Determination Mechanism: The 2026 ICC Rules now expressly permit parties to seek early determination of claims or defenses that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. While this mechanism previously appeared in the ICC’s Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals, its express inclusion in the 2026 ICC Rules reinforces the ICC’s continued emphasis on efficient case management and early disposal of unmeritorious issues where appropriate.
• Confidentiality: In addition to the existing confidentiality obligations applicable to the ICC Court and Secretariat, the 2026 ICC Rules now expressly require arbitrators to keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration, subject to limited exceptions, including where disclosure is required by law, necessary to protect a legal right, agreed by the parties, or where the information already is in the public domain. Notably, the 2026 ICC Rules continue not to impose a default confidentiality requirement on the parties. The ICC considered imposing broader default confidentiality obligations on parties, but ultimately retained the existing approach in light of user concerns regarding necessary disclosures to parent companies, regulators, auditors, and other third parties. Therefore, under the 2026 ICC Rules, parties retain the ability to agree on the extent to which they wish the arbitration to be confidential and to request the arbitral tribunal to issue protective orders.

Other Changes

The 2026 ICC Rules also contain several other procedural updates intended to modernize and streamline ICC arbitrations. These include, amongst others:

• Electronic communication is now the default. Requests, submissions, and other case materials will generally be transmitted electronically, and arbitral awards may also be signed electronically following consultation with the parties, although parties may still request physical copies where needed.
• The revised joinder provisions clarify that, after constitution of the tribunal, an additional party may be joined with that party’s consent. The amendment introduces greater flexibility for multi-party proceedings, as the 2021 rules previously required the consent of all parties or the tribunal’s approval.
• The 2026 ICC Rules replace the longstanding six-month default deadline for rendering final awards following signature of the TOR. Instead, the President of the ICC Court will determine and, where necessary, extend the applicable timeline having regard to the procedural timetable and the circumstances of the case. In practice, this largely formalizes the ICC’s existing approach, under which award timelines were commonly aligned with the procedural timetable rather than a fixed default period. For parties, the change may provide greater visibility into the expected timing of an award from an earlier stage of the proceedings, while also placing increased emphasis on realistic procedural scheduling and active case management.

Conclusion

The 2026 ICC Rules reflect the ICC’s continued efforts to adapt arbitral procedure to the evolving expectations of commercial users, particularly in relation to efficiency, procedural flexibility, transparency, and proportionality. While many of the revisions build incrementally on existing practice, several changes – including the introduction of HEAP, the removal of mandatory TOR, and the expanded emergency arbitrator framework – are likely to have meaningful practical implications for the conduct of ICC arbitrations.

Taken together, the revisions further expand the procedural tools available to parties and tribunals under the ICC framework. As a result, when negotiating dispute resolution clauses and formulating a disputes strategy, parties should consider carefully which procedural mechanisms best align with their commercial objectives, risk profile, and expectations regarding cost, timing, and complexity.