Since 1922, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published Arbitration rules which, it indicates, have established themselves as the most widely used set of institutional arbitration rules worldwide.[1] Over the years, this text has undergone several revisions.
On 1 June 2026, a new version of these arbitration rules entered into force (the rules), following the previous update of January 2021. The new rules are the product of an extensive global consultation involving more than 1,400 delegates from over 90 countries, including the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR and the network of its national committees. They reflect the actual needs of businesses, arbitrators, counsel and State representatives, in order to ensure that ICC Arbitration continues to meet the requirements of the international community of arbitration users.[2]
Against this backdrop, the new rules introduce substantial changes and establish new principles. Among the principal innovations, they first strengthen the integrity and institutional governance of arbitration (I), then modernise the conduct of ordinary arbitral proceedings (II), and finally introduce new mechanisms designed to expedite dispute resolution (III). Beyond their procedural aspects, these developments could have significant consequences for practitioners (IV).
I. The new rules strengthen institutional integrity and governance
On matters of independence, impartiality and confidentiality, the rules extend the obligations imposed on the participants in an ICC Arbitration. They also make several adjustments to the institutional functioning of the ICC Court (Court).
The obligations imposed on participants in the arbitral proceedings are extended
The new rules pay particular attention to the obligations of independence, impartiality and confidentiality bearing on arbitrators. Article 12(2) maintains the disclosure obligation: in agreeing to serve, prospective arbitrators are required to disclose in writing to the Secretariat any facts or circumstances which might be of such a nature as to call into question their independence in the eyes of the parties. They must also disclose any circumstances that could give rise to reasonable doubts as to their impartiality.[3]
The rules add two important clarifications, previously set out only in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration.[4] First, any doubts the prospective arbitrator may have about whether to make a disclosure shall be resolved in favour of disclosure (Article 12(2)). Second, a disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality (Article 12(4)).[5]
Beyond the arbitrator’s own disclosure obligations, Article 12(5) introduces a new structured mechanism for involving the parties in the disclosure process. When filing their Request, Answer or Request for Joinder, each party is required to submit to the Secretariat a list of persons and entities which they believe the prospective arbitrator should consider, together with the reasons supporting such consideration.[6] This list complements the assessment, which the prospective arbitrator must carry out under Article 12(2), without however relieving the latter of the ultimate responsibility for disclosure. It will be incorporated into the case information document that the Secretariat compiles and forwards to prospective arbitrators.[7]
The objective of these changes is clear. It is to ensure that relevant information circulates very early in order to prevent difficulties relating to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Indeed, Article 15(2) of the rules maintains the obligation for parties to the arbitration to file any challenge within 30 days of the disclosure of the information underlying the challenge.
The rules also continue to provide for arbitration without confidentiality by default. It is for the parties to agree on the possible confidentiality of their arbitration. The rules nevertheless strengthen the arbitrator’s confidentiality obligations. Article 12(8) of the rules introduces a new explicit obligation on arbitrators: they are henceforth required to keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration, unless such matters are already in the public domain, the parties have agreed otherwise, the applicable law so requires, or such disclosure is necessary to protect a right or to comply with disclosure obligations.[8] The confidentiality obligations of the Court and the Secretariat remain unchanged, as does the tribunal’s power to issue orders on confidentiality matters at the request of any party (Article 23(3)).
The rules further extend these integrity standards beyond arbitrators alone. Article 44 enshrines the practice relating to the tribunal secretary: after consultation with the parties, the arbitral tribunal may appoint a tribunal secretary to assist it under its direction and control, without delegation of any jurisdictional or decision-making power. The tribunal secretary is subject to the same requirements of independence, impartiality and confidentiality as the arbitrators, and must sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence prior to their appointment.[9]
Several institutional practices are now enshrined
While the obligations imposed on arbitrators constitute a first pillar of the integrity of arbitration, its proper functioning also depends on the solidity of the institutional bodies governing it. The new rules thus also make several adjustments affecting the functioning of the Court’s bodies.
First, Article 14(2) now provides that the Secretary General may refer to the Court a decision relating to the confirmation of an arbitrator, even in the absence of any objection, thus codifying existing practice.[10]
Second, Article 16(5) relaxes the conditions under which the Court may decide to proceed with a truncated tribunal. Henceforth, this possibility is open as from the last hearing or the filing of the last substantive submissions, whichever is the later, in the event of an arbitrator’s death or removal by the Court, without the need to await the formal closure of the proceedings as required under the previous regime.[11]
II. A redesigned arbitral procedure for greater efficiency, clarity and readability
The 2026 rules pursue an overall objective of procedural efficiency, clarity and readability. To this end, they simplify the early stages of the arbitral proceedings, make the conditions for issuing the award more flexible and lastly strengthen transparency in the costs regime.
The organisation of the arbitral proceedings is redesigned
The rules first modernise the procedures for written communications. Article 3 enshrines the use of electronic means as the default mode for all communications in cases administered by the Court, whether the Request for Arbitration, the Answer, any Request for Joinder or the Answer to such Request. Hard copies remain authorised exceptionally, where the party making the submissions requests transmission with acknowledgement of receipt, or where electronic transmission is not practicable.[12] This development is part of a broader dynamic of modernisation and efficiency, supported by the digital case management platform ICC Case Connect, developed with Opus 2, which provides parties and tribunals with a secure and centralised space for their exchanges and document sharing. It thus aims to enhance procedural efficiency, alleviate the administrative burden and promote more streamlined case management, both for the parties and for the arbitrators and the Court’s Secretariat.[13]
Beyond this modernisation of communications, the rules effect a more substantial transformation by removing the mandatory character of terms of reference (TOR).[14] Historically, the TOR performed three essential functions: confirming the parties’ consent to arbitrate, formalising the principal procedural agreements at an early stage, and defining the scope of the dispute. Their practical relevance has, however, diminished over time. The successive revisions of the rules had gradually relaxed their regime, and tribunals themselves were increasingly inclined to defer the setting of a precise list of issues to be determined, regarded as premature at that stage of the proceedings.[15]
Under the 2021 edition of the rules, the tribunal was required to prepare the TOR and transmit them to the Court within 30 days of the transmission of the file, a deadline frequently extended in practice. If a party refused to participate in their drafting or to sign them, the TOR were submitted to the Court for approval,[16] which could slow down the proceedings.[17]
Henceforth, TOR are no longer a necessary step in ICC proceedings, although arbitral tribunals retain the discretion to establish them where they consider it useful as a case management tool. This approach builds on the Expedited Procedure Provisions (Expedited Procedure Provisions – EPP) introduced in 2017, under which TOR were already not mandatory: out of more than 1,000 cases administered under that framework, fewer than 25 tribunals chose to draw them up.[18]
The removal of this formal step is, however, accompanied by the strengthening of another procedural tool. The Case Management Conference (CMC) becomes the central procedural pivot. Remaining mandatory under Article 24 and required to be held within 30 days of the transmission of the file to the arbitral tribunal, the CMC corresponds to the moment when the procedural timetable and the principal rules governing the proceedings will generally be set. Moreover, after this initial CMC, no party may introduce new claims without the authorisation of the arbitral tribunal, which shall then take into account the nature of the claims, the stage of the proceedings, any cost implications and any other relevant circumstances.[19]
This reorganisation of the early stages of the proceedings is finally accompanied by greater flexibility in managing the arbitral timetable. Article 34 of the 2026 rules provides that the President of the Court shall fix, or subsequently extend, the time limit for rendering the final award, considering the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal.[20] This replaces the six-month time limit that traditionally applied by default from the last signature of the TOR. In practice, that time limit was rarely applied, the Court most often aligning itself with the procedural timetable to offer the parties greater visibility on the issuance of the award.[21]
The conditions for issuing the arbitral award are made more flexible
The innovations of the 2026 rules do not concern only the opening of the proceedings. They also affect their conclusion, by introducing greater flexibility in the conditions for issuing the award.
Regarding the signature and notification of the award, Article 38(1) introduces greater flexibility, which should also have the effect of shortening the duration of the proceedings. After consultation with the parties and considering all relevant circumstances, the arbitral tribunal may now sign the award by electronic means, sign in several original counterparts, and request the Secretariat to notify the award in hard copy or electronic form, or by any other means authorised by the applicable law.[22]
The rules also adjust the regime applicable following the issuance of the award. Thus, Article 39(1) extends from 30 to 45 days the time limit within which the arbitral tribunal may submit, on its own initiative, a correction of the award, in order to reflect the now established practice requiring it to first invite the parties’ observations.[23]
Transparency and predictability of costs are strengthened
Beyond procedural aspects, the rules also seek to enhance the readability of the financial regime of ICC Arbitration. They thus improve the transparency and accessibility of information relating to the fees and costs of arbitration, the detail of which is henceforth set out in a separate document (Schedule of Fees). In order to increase administrative efficiency, the Secretary General is entrusted with setting advances on costs and managing routine financial matters, while the Court retains exclusive jurisdiction to fix arbitrators’ fees and administrative expenses.[24]
Along the same lines, several provisions previously contained in the Note to Parties have also been incorporated into the rules, in particular those relating to the process for accepting third-party payments and the conditions under which arbitrators may request advances on fees.[25]
Lastly, on the tariff front, the scales of administrative expenses have been adjusted: on the one hand, they are reduced for disputes below USD 10 million, in line with the ICC’s mission to ensure affordable access to justice. On the other hand, targeted upward adjustments have been introduced for larger disputes.[26]
III. The rules strengthen the mechanisms for prompt and efficient dispute resolution
The new rules also seek to strengthen the mechanisms allowing for the prompt resolution of disputes. To this end, they enhance the existing expedited and emergency procedures while introducing new instruments designed to foster an even faster resolution of certain disputes.
Existing procedures are streamlined
Regarding the expedited procedure, the 2026 rules do not modify its fundamental features: default appointment of a sole arbitrator, award rendered within six months from the initial CMC, tighter procedural deadlines, limits on submissions and hearings, and overall costs lower than those of ordinary proceedings. The principal evolution lies in the raising of the threshold for the automatic application of the EPP, increased to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1st June 2026.[27]
This raise is significant: in 2025, more than 40% of ICC cases did not exceed that amount, which appears to considerably broaden the range of disputes eligible for the expedited procedure. It also reflects the growing value of international commercial disputes and the confidence that businesses, States and State entities have developed in this procedure since its introduction in 2017, which, to date, has given rise to more than 1,000 cases administered and nearly 600 awards rendered. The parties remain free, regardless of the value of the dispute, to opt in or out of the expedited procedure.[28]
Beyond the expedited procedure, the rules introduce several adjustments to the Emergency Arbitration regime, and particularly an extension of its scope of application. While the previous regime limited this procedure to signatories of the arbitration agreement and their successors, the rules now take into consideration the realities of international trade.[29] They explicitly provide that emergency arbitrator proceedings may be initiated against the signatories of the arbitration agreement upon which the application is based, their successors, but also any party for which the President of the Court is satisfied, on the basis of the information contained in the application, that an arbitration agreement may bind such party.[30]
The Rules also strengthen the effectiveness of this tool by expressly enshrining preliminary orders. At any stage of the emergency arbitrator proceedings, a party may now request a preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the application. Where circumstances so require, particularly where there is a risk of dissipation of assets or destruction of evidence, this request may be made and decided without prior notice to the other parties. Procedural safeguards nevertheless frame this mechanism: if the preliminary order is granted on a non-adversarial basis, the emergency arbitrator must immediately give all other parties the opportunity to present their position and retains the power to modify or revoke the order in light of subsequent submissions.[31]
The rules introduce new procedural tools
Beyond the intended improvement of the existing mechanisms, the 2026 rules introduce several tools designed to foster a faster resolution of disputes. In this respect, they enshrine the early determination mechanism, previously described only in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals.[32] In response to feedback from the international arbitration community and in order to remove any doubt as to the tribunals’ power to resort to it, Article 30 now expressly provides that any party may apply to the arbitral tribunal for the early determination of one or more claims or defences, on the ground that they are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.[33]
The tribunal determines in its discretion whether to allow the application to proceed. In practice, it is generally allowed where only legal issues are at stake and dismissed where its resolution requires a substantial factual analysis. If it is allowed, the opposing party must have a reasonable opportunity to respond, and the tribunal then decides as promptly as possible.[34] The award is reviewed by the Court, typically within one week of its receipt by the Secretariat.[35]
The reform goes still further by introducing a highly expedited arbitration (Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions – HEAP), now governed by Annex VI of the rules. Unlike the expedited or emergency procedures, HEAP does not apply by default: it is based on an opt-in mechanism, the parties being able to opt in either at the stage of drafting the arbitration clause or after the dispute has arisen. It is applicable irrespective of the amount in dispute.[36]
HEAP is designed for simple commercial disputes or issues calling for swift resolution, typically in the technology, sports or purchase price adjustment sectors. Procedurally complex disputes are excluded; joinder and consolidation not being permitted.[37]
The drive for acceleration is directly reflected at the procedural level. The dispute is decided by a sole arbitrator, appointed by the parties within 20 days of the receipt of the Request for Arbitration or, in the absence of agreement, directly by the Court. The procedure is accelerated from the outset: the Request for Arbitration must be accompanied by a Statement of Claim, and the Answer by a Statement of Defence, and both statements must be supported by the relevant evidence and legal authorities. The arbitrator has broad discretion to adopt the procedural measures required, notably by limiting subsequent submissions, excluding document production or deciding the case on documents only without a hearing. The award must be rendered within three months of the initial CMC, which must take place within seven days of the arbitrator’s receipt of the file. This three-month time limit includes the review by the Court and the notification of the award to the parties.[38]
This logic of efficiency is also reflected in the financial regime of HEAP, which adopts the same scale of costs as the expedited procedure, as well as in the possibility, specific to HEAP, of agreeing to an award without reasons. This option is presented by the ICC as a lever of efficiency, especially for low-value disputes. The parties will nevertheless need to anticipate potential enforcement difficulties in certain jurisdictions.[39]
IV. The revised rules call for a reconsideration of certain practices
While these developments primarily address an objective of procedural efficiency, they could have significant consequences for all users of ICC Arbitration. While it is difficult to anticipate them all, three areas appear from the outset to merit particular attention: the new regime for new claims could lead the parties to anticipate the scope of the dispute earlier ; the raising of the threshold of the expedited procedure and the introduction of HEAP invite a reconsideration of arbitration clauses and their drafting ; lastly, the new disclosure obligations strengthen the checks relating to the independence of arbitrators.
Parties will likely need to anticipate the scope of the dispute earlier
The new regime applicable to new claims after the first CMC (Article 25) could reinforce the need to anticipate the scope of the dispute as soon as the proceedings are opened.
In practice, some parties may have hitherto been inclined to draft Requests for Arbitration without necessarily having all the ins and outs of the dispute, in particular as regards the assessment of damages. Indeed, various considerations may motivate a party to commence proceedings quickly. They would then refine their claims, notably when drafting the Terms of Reference. As the latter occurred only thirty days after the transmission of the file to the arbitral tribunal (such transmission itself occurring a few months after the filing of the request for arbitration due to the time required to constitute the arbitral tribunal), they thereby enjoyed several months to revise their position if necessary.
Henceforth, with the disappearance of the Terms of Reference and the rule that no new claim may be introduced after the CMC without the authorisation of the arbitral tribunal, parties may have an interest in identifying earlier and more precisely the heads of claim that they may need to develop, in order to avoid any debate as to the introduction of what may be characterised as new claims.
This development could be particularly sensitive in cases where certain claims depend on complex analyses requiring, for example, the gathering of evidence or the involvement of experts, and the parties must prepare for this with their counsel.
Arbitration clauses may need to be revised in view of the new expedited mechanisms
According to the ICC, had the raising to USD 4 million of the threshold for automatic application of the expedited procedure now in force since 1 June 2026 been applicable to cases filed in 2025, it would have concerned more than 40% of ICC cases.[40] With this raise, the expedited procedure is thus on track to become the norm. This should lead to a significantly larger number of disputes being submitted by default to a tighter format, characterised by short procedural deadlines, limited submissions and the default appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Parties must therefore consider, when drafting (or revising) the arbitration clause, the relevance of the expedited procedure to resolve the disputes they can anticipate. They may in particular wish to opt out of this regime for disputes below this new threshold, especially where the contractual relationship is liable to give rise to complex disputes.
The introduction of HEAP calls for a similar reflection. As an opt-in mechanism, the question for counsel in charge of drafting arbitration clauses is for what type of dispute it is appropriate to retain this mechanism. The parties may therefore provide in their arbitration clause that any dispute will be submitted to HEAP, where the disputes likely to arise out of the contract are circumscribed and unlikely to require extensive evidence-taking. By contrast, the condensed format of HEAP, characterised by an award rendered within three months, the possibility of deciding on documents and the exclusion of joinder and consolidation, may seem ill-suited to disputes that may involve, for example, a corruption or fraud component, the characterisation of which often requires a thorough factual examination, frequently supported by expert evidence.
The hunt for conflicts of interest, via disclosure, now falls within a new due diligence
The new Article 12(5), providing for the establishment by the parties of a list of entities they consider should be taken into consideration by the prospective arbitrators in assessing their independence, calls on the parties to perform a due diligence exercise which the earlier versions of the rules did not require of them.
Establishing this list should indeed involve a mapping exercise of the persons and entities likely to have a connection with the prospective arbitrators, whether the parties themselves, their affiliates, their counsel or, where applicable, third-party funders.
This due diligence exercise will certainly have to be carried out seriously. Where a party submits an incomplete list, it can be anticipated that courts will take this shortcoming into account when reviewing the awards submitted to them. The fact that the French courts, for example, already rely on the rules as well as on the Note to Parties to decide an allegation of partiality or dependence of an arbitrator effectively calls for such consideration[41].
