The new ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 (“2026 Rules”) will enter into force on 1 June 2026. Five years after the last revision of the ICC Arbitration Rules 2021 (“2021 Rules”), the ICC has introduced a targeted set of amendments designed to enhance efficiency and usability. Rather than overhauling the framework of ICC arbitration, the 2026 Rules refine it in light of practical experience gathered under the 2021 Rules, in particular with regard to digitalization, procedural streamlining and differentiated case management.

This post introduces the most relevant changes from the 2021 Rules to the 2026 Rules.

Terms of Reference

One of the most notable changes concerns the Terms of Reference. Under the 2021 Rules, the Terms of Reference were a mandatory feature of ICC arbitration. They served several functions: confirming the parties’ consent to arbitration, recording key procedural arrangements and defining the scope of the dispute.

The 2026 Rules abandon this mandatory approach. Terms of Reference are no longer required in every case. Instead, tribunals now retain the discretion to establish them where appropriate. This change reflects the ICC’s view that, in many cases, the mandatory preparation of Terms of Reference added an additional procedural step without necessarily creating corresponding value.

Importantly, the removal of mandatory Terms of Reference does not mean that the early structuring of proceedings is weakened. The Case Management Conference(“CMC”) under Article 24(1) remains mandatory and must still be held within 30 days of the file being transmitted to the tribunal. The CMC now becomes the principal early-stage procedural milestone. In practice, this change signals a shift away from formality for its own sake and towards a more flexible, case-specific and efficiency-driven approach to case management.

Disclosure of the arbitrators

A further development is the strengthening of the arbitrator disclosure regime. The 2026 Rules tighten the disclosure obligations of arbitrators in order to reinforce transparency and confidence in the arbitral process.

While arbitrators were already required under the 2021 Rules to disclose circumstances that might give rise to doubts as to their independence or impartiality, the 2026 Rules place greater emphasis on the continuing nature of that obligation and the need for meaningful, up-to-date disclosures. The revised disclosure rules are intended to promote earlier identification of potential conflicts and to reduce the risk of challenges disrupting the proceedings at a later stage.

Article 12(2) now explicitly requires prospective arbitrators to resolve any uncertainty about disclosure in favor of making a disclosure. At the same time, the 2026 Rules clarify that disclosure is not treated as an admission of conflict or partiality, but as a tool to allow informed assessment by the parties, co-arbitrators and the ICC Court (Article 12(4)). By elevating these requirements from the Note to the 2026 Rules itself, the 2026 Rules reinforce a culture of proactive transparency.

Tribunal secretary

The 2026 Rules also address the role of the tribunal secretary more expressly. Article 44 now provides a clearer textual basis for the appointment and use of tribunal secretaries, thereby codifying a practice that has long been common in complex international arbitrations. Additionally, Annex III, Article 7 stipulates that the arbitral tribunal is entitled to claim reimbursement for reasonable and justified expenses incurred by a tribunal secretary. However, direct arrangements concerning the tribunal secretary’s fees between the arbitral tribunal and the parties are expressly prohibited.

The express regulation of tribunal secretaries is welcome for two reasons. First, it increases transparency by confirming that the use of a secretary is a recognized procedural tool rather than an informal practice operating in the background. Second, it helps define the boundaries of that role more clearly. The involvement of tribunal secretaries has sometimes raised concerns about the improper delegation of decision-making. By expressly regulating the role, the 2026 Rules seek to preserve the benefits of secretarial assistance while safeguarding the tribunal’s personal responsibility for the conduct and determination of the arbitration.

Emergency Arbitration

The emergency arbitration provisions have also been revised. The amendments are aimed at making emergency proceedings more workable in practice and better aligned with users’ expectations of speed and procedural effectiveness.

The 2026 Rules broaden the availability and functionality of emergency arbitration. Under Appendix VI, emergency arbitrator proceedings may now also be initiated against “any party for which the President is satisfied, based on information in the Application, that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist”. The addition is intended to widen the possibility to seek urgent interim or conservatory relief even before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal with regard to the respondent party. This is consistent with the ICC’s broader effort to make its procedures more responsive to the commercial realities of cross-border disputes.

Expedited and Highly Expedited Procedure

The 2026 Rules further expand the ICC’s approach to procedural efficiency on a case by case basis through changes to the Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”) and the introduction of Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”).

As regards expedited procedure, the 2026 Rules continue the ICC’s policy of offering a streamlined framework for lower-value or otherwise suitable disputes (now Appendix V). The monetary threshold for the automatic application of the EPP increases to USD 4 million for claims brought under arbitration agreements concluded on or after June 1, 2026. This change aims to make expedited arbitration more practical and attractive. It reflects the market’s expectations with regard to streamlined proceedings: users increasingly expect institutional arbitration to provide procedural options calibrated to the size, urgency and complexity of the dispute.

The most innovative addition is the introduction of provisions for highly expedited arbitration in Appendix VI. These provisions are aimed at disputes that require an even more compressed and simplified process than the existing expedited procedure can offer. In effect, the ICC is creating a new procedural tier for parties seeking very fast resolution. The suitability of HEAP does not depend on the value of the claims. According to the ICC HEAP is most suitable for (i) lower complexity commercial disputes, (ii) claims with a simple factual matrix, and (iii) the resolution of a distinct aspect of a dispute, which requires swift resolution – such as purchase price adjustment disputes.

From a user perspective, this is likely to be one of the most practically important changes in the 2026 Rules. The introduction of highly expedited arbitration acknowledges that, for some disputes, speed and proportionality are paramount. The challenge in practice will be to ensure that the pursuit of efficiency does not come at the expense of due process.

Other changes include:

• Under the 2026 Rules, arbitrators must keep arbitration matters confidential unless disclosure is permitted by agreement, law, public domain status, or necessary to protect legal rights or fulfill disclosure requirements (Article 12(8)).
• The 2026 Rules contain provisions addressing a truncated tribunal, providing for a possibility of proceeding with a truncated tribunal not just after the closing of the proceedings but already after the last hearing or the filing of the last substantive submissions (Article 16(5)).
• The list of case management techniques has been removed from the Rules themselves, allowing the ICC to update such guidance more easily in response to evolving practice.
• The possibility of early determination of claims or defenses that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction is now expressly anchored in the 2026 Rules, rather than being addressed only in guidance materials (Article 30).
• The authority to fix and extend time limits for rendering the final award is vested in the President of the ICC Court, replacing the earlier default time limit of six months from the last signature of the Terms of Reference (Article 34).
• The 2026 Rules specifically allow for written communications to be submitted electronically and to issue and notify awards by using electronic signatures, signing in counterparts, and notifying the parties either on paper or digitally (Articles 3(1), 38).
• The period within which the arbitral tribunal may correct an award on its own initiative has been extended from 30 to 45 days (Article 39(1)).
• The ICC has also updated its US-dollar scale for administrative expenses. For disputes below USD 10 million, costs have been reduced, underscoring the ICC’s aim of keeping arbitration accessible and affordable. At the same time, larger disputes will see targeted fee increases – for the first time since 2010.

Overall, the 2026 Rules do not amount to a revolution. They are instead a measured and practical update of the 2021 Rules. Their central themes are clear: greater procedural flexibility, stronger transparency, further digitalization and a more differentiated approach to efficiency. For users of ICC arbitration, the reforms are likely to be most visible in the removal of mandatory Terms of Reference, the enhanced disclosure framework and the introduction of highly expedited arbitration.