The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is one of the world’s leading arbitral institutions. On 1 June 2026, a fundamentally revised version of the ICC Arbitration Rules will enter into force. The reform aims to make ICC arbitration more efficient and practice-oriented, while further strengthening procedural flexibility. This article provides an overview of the key changes and their practical implications.
Overview of the most relevant changes
The new ICC Arbitration Rules (“ICC Rules 2026”) will come into force on 1 June 2026 and will change ICC arbitration in key aspects:
A hallmark of ICC arbitration proceedings to date has been the drafting of Terms of Reference, a case management tool to streamline proceedings from the outset. This will no longer be mandatory. Instead, arbitral tribunals will have to hold a case management conference early on to structure proceedings.
The ICC Rules 2026 introduce a new mechanism for the early dismissal of claims that lack any prospect of success, thereby potentially saving the parties significant time and costs.
- The threshold for the automatic application of the expedited procedure has been raised, and a new highly expedited procedure requiring the consent of both parties has been introduced. Especially in cases where swift dispute resolution is crucial, the highly expedited procedure may be of particular interest to parties.
- The deadline for issuing an arbitral award will no longer be six months from the signing of the Terms of Reference; instead, it is at the discretion of the President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration.
- The ICC will maintain its comparatively strict disclosure standards regarding the independence and impartiality of arbitrators. Parties will have to submit a list of persons and entities that they believe arbitrators should take into account in their independence and impartiality disclosure.
- Emergency arbitrators may issue preliminary orders to ensure the efficiency of emergency arbitration even before hearing the affected party.
- The confidentiality obligation of the members of the arbitral tribunal is now explicitly provided in the ICC Rules 2026. Despite being the subject of intense debate, however, there continues to be no explicit confidentiality obligation of the parties.
- The ICC Rules 2026 now formally codify the role of tribunal secretaries. This corresponds with recent developments that tribunal secretaries supporting arbitrators in case handling is becoming increasingly common.
- Electronic communication will become the default format for correspondence, and arbitral awards may be signed electronically.
Introduction
In 2025 alone, 881 new cases were registered with the ICC, and the ICC registered its 30,000th case. Surveys regularly show that the ICC Arbitration Rules are among the rules most preferred by companies for international dispute resolution. Accordingly, they are frequently agreed upon in international contracts and treaties. Changes to the ICC Arbitration Rules therefore have great practical relevance, not least because other institutions frequently view them as a blueprint. The ICC Rules 2026 – described by the ICC as the most substantial revision of the ICC Arbitration Rules since 2012 – will apply to arbitration proceedings commenced on or after 1 June 2026 unless the parties agree otherwise.
Only voluntary use of Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference have been a distinctive feature of ICC arbitration since the establishment of the ICC International Court of Arbitration (“Court”) over 100 years ago. They have been a valuable tool to ensure efficient case management. In conventional proceedings, arbitral tribunals had to draft the Terms of Reference as soon as they received the case file. The Terms of Reference were required to include information on the parties, the arbitrators, the place of arbitration, the claims asserted, the issues to be decided by the arbitral tribunal, and the applicable procedural rules. In practice, however, arbitral tribunals would often ask the parties to draft substantial parts of the Terms of Reference, such as the summary of their positions, and would state that the issues to be decided were still to be determined. Once the Terms of Reference were signed, new subject matters and claims could only be introduced if expressly admitted.
The ICC Rules 2026 abolish the Terms of Reference as a mandatory element of ICC arbitration but still allow their voluntary use at the discretion of the arbitral tribunal. A decisive factor in this change was the success of the expedited procedure available since 2017, which has not required any Terms of Reference. Instead of drafting Terms of Reference early on, arbitral tribunals are now required to hold an initial case management conference within 30 days of receipt of the case file. This early case management conference constitutes the new cut-off date for the introduction of any new claims.
By abolishing the Terms of Reference, the ICC is giving up one of its unique selling points. However, as other arbitration rules show, efficient case management does not necessarily depend on the drafting of Terms of Reference. On the contrary, strictly requiring arbitral tribunals to initiate the first drafting process at the very outset of the proceedings may delay rather than expedite the proceedings, especially in heavily disputed cases. Abolishing the Terms of Reference simplifies the early stages of ICC arbitrations. Their voluntary use still provides enough flexibility to use this case management tool where it increases the efficiency of proceedings. The ICC’s willingness to abandon one of its distinctive features for the sake of efficiency demonstrates a commendable commitment to practical reform. Whether arbitral tribunals constituted under the ICC Rules 2026 will fall back on this familiar instrument in practice remains to be seen.
New mechanism for early dismissal of manifestly unfounded or inadmissible claims
The ICC Rules 2026 contain an explicit mechanism for the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims or claims that are obviously outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. This addition highlights the variety of tools and procedures available for effective dispute resolution within ICC arbitration. Through early dismissal, the parties can save significant time and costs by shortening the duration of proceedings when claims are obviously unsuccessful.
Introduction of the Highly Expedited Procedure and increased thresholds for the Expedited Procedure
The ICC Rules 2026 will increase the threshold for the automatic application of the expedited procedure from an amount in dispute of USD 3 million to USD 4 million. This applies to disputes based on arbitration agreements that were concluded on or after 1 June 2026. The key feature of the expedited procedure is that the parties will generally receive a final award within six months of the initial case management conference.
In addition, the ICC Rules 2026 introduce an entirely new procedure, the highly expedited procedure, where the parties will generally receive a final award by a sole arbitrator within three months of the initial case management conference. This procedure is only available with the consent of all parties, regardless of the amount in dispute, thus meeting the need for rapid dispute resolution. In practice, the highly expedited procedure will be a particularly attractive option in industries where swift dispute resolution is essential, as long-lasting disputes create further damage or other detriment to the parties. Industries and dispute types prone to such form of dispute resolution include construction, energy, technology and post-M&A disputes.
Highly expedited procedures naturally leave less time for the parties to present their case. The ICC Rules 2026 address this tension by front-loading the proceedings: Initial briefs must present all relevant facts, evidence and arguments in full. The arbitrator has discretion to decide solely on the basis of the pleadings and without an oral hearing, and to reject requests for document production. The parties may also agree on an arbitral award without reasoning.
Since the introduction of the expedited procedure in 2017, the ICC Court has administered 1,034 expedited procedure cases, resulting in 591 awards. The ICC therefore has extensive experience in handling expedited procedure cases. The highly expedited procedure is a welcome addition to the ICC’s procedural toolset and could fill a void for cases where timing is most critical. However, whether parties will trust arbitrators to reach a sound decision in such a short time – particularly when major sums are in dispute – remains to be seen. Agreeing on a highly expedited procedure will require a careful balance of interests between the need for a swift decision and the potential detriment resulting from the limited opportunity to present the case.
Deadline for the arbitral award and ex officio correction of awards
The previous six-month period for the preparation of the arbitral award, calculated from the signing of the Terms of Reference, was considered impractical and was often extended in practice, sometimes considerably. The ICC has now decided to replace this (theoretically) rigid deadline with a more flexible approach. In future, the President of the Court will set the deadline for submitting the arbitral award and subsequently extend the deadline, taking into account the procedural timetable and any reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal. The psychological hurdle for arbitrators to request an extension of the six-month deadline would often de facto expedite ICC arbitration compared to proceedings administered by other arbitral institutions. Whether or not this effect survives will depend heavily on the practice of the President in setting deadlines for the submission of awards.
In addition, the period within which the arbitral tribunal may make an ex officio correction of the arbitral award will be extended from 30 to 45 days. This extension takes into account the now expressly regulated requirement that the arbitral tribunal must first obtain the comments of the parties before making a correction.
New disclosure requirements and strengthening the independence and impartiality of arbitrators
The ICC Rules 2026 maintain their comparatively strict disclosure standards for arbitrators. However, parties may now influence the process by providing a list of persons and entities that they believe arbitrators should take into account in the disclosure. This mechanism involves the parties at an early stage, makes the disclosure process more efficient and reduces the risk of conflicts of interest arising only at a later stage of the proceedings. Parties with experience in DIS arbitration will be familiar with this. The ICC Rules 2026 go slightly beyond the requirements in the DIS Arbitration Rules 2018, as parties will have to explain why they wish to include certain persons or entities in the disclosure list. From a practical standpoint, parties should prepare such lists carefully to ensure comprehensive disclosure.
Arbitrators nevertheless remain obliged to fully disclose all relevant relationships and circumstances – even those that are not mentioned in a party’s list. In addition, the ICC Rules 2026 expressly state that doubts must always be resolved in favor of disclosure while disclosure as such does not constitute a lack of independence or impartiality. The aim is to promote a culture of transparency without creating a presumption of bias at the same time.
Emergency arbitrator proceedings: Scope of application and interim orders
With respect to emergency arbitration, the ICC Rules 2026 make two major revisions: First, they clarify against whom emergency relief may be sought, i.e. not only signatories of the arbitration agreement but also parties for whom the President of the Court determines that a binding arbitration agreement may exist. This extension accommodates the fact that disputes often involve complex corporate structures and issues. Second, the ICC Rules 2026 expressly recognize the possibility of preliminary orders in the context of emergency arbitrator proceedings. A party may request an interim order from the emergency arbitrator at any stage of the proceedings, and the interim order may be granted ex parte, provided that the affected party is given an opportunity to be heard after the interim order has been granted. The possibility of ex parte emergency relief stops parties from undermining the effectiveness of the requested measure before any decision by the emergency arbitrator.
Confidentiality of arbitration proceedings
For many companies, confidentiality is one of the main reasons for choosing arbitration over state court litigation. Parties that do not want to resolve their dispute in public proceedings before a state court are often prone to conclude arbitration agreements. Therefore, other arbitration institutions such as the DIS provide for broad confidentiality obligations in their arbitration rules.
After intense debate, the ICC decided merely to explicitly clarify that the arbitrators have a confidentiality obligation. With regard to the parties, the ICC chose not to insert a confidentiality obligation in the rules but to leave the rules unchanged in this regard. The rationale behind this is that the confidentiality obligations required by the parties may vary widely across cases. The ICC has therefore left it to parties to draft a tailor-made confidentiality agreement themselves. Alternatively, the rules allow parties to request that the arbitral tribunal issue orders concerning the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings. However, parties that put high emphasis on the confidentiality of proceedings should be aware that strict confidentiality is not guaranteed in ICC arbitration but requires additional safeguards and party agreement.
Formal recognition of the tribunal secretary
The ICC Rules 2026 codify the role of tribunal secretaries, thus creating a formal framework for a support function that is already widespread in practice. The arbitral tribunal may, after hearing the parties, appoint a tribunal secretary to work under their direction and control. Naturally, decision-making powers may not be delegated. Tribunal secretaries are subject to the same requirements of independence, impartiality and confidentiality as arbitrators and must make a corresponding statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence prior to their appointment.
Digitalization: Electronic communication and signing of arbitral awards
The default format of communication – including the submission of written submissions – is electronic. The ICC offers its own digital case management platform for this purpose, which provides parties and arbitral tribunals with a secure, central area for communication and document exchange. The use of this central case environment is recommended but remains at the discretion of the parties involved.
Another practical innovation concerns the signing of arbitral awards: The arbitral tribunal may sign the arbitral award electronically, sign it in separate copies or instruct the Secretariat to serve the arbitral award in printed, electronic or other legally permissible form.
Conclusion
The new ICC Rules 2026 are the most comprehensive revision of the rules of one of the world’s leading international arbitral institutions in more than a decade. The ICC did not shy away from giving up established case management tools in favor of increased efficiency. Overall, the ICC Rules 2026 allow for efficient case management while leaving sufficient room for tailor-made solutions on a case-by-case basis. Entirely new proceedings such as the highly expedited procedure should attract significant attention in a number of sectors where rapid dispute resolution is often crucial.
The new ICC Rules 2026 will apply to all requests for arbitration filed on or after 1 June 2026. Parties and their advisors should therefore familiarize themselves with the new provisions at an early stage and examine the extent to which existing arbitration clauses and procedural strategies should be adapted. We are happy to assist with the review and adaptation of arbitration clauses and to advise on the strategic implications of the new rules.
Forward
