ICC Arbitration Rules 2026: What you need to know

The Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Arbitration Rules) are the most popular set of institutional arbitration rules globally, preferred by 39% of respondents to the Queen Mary University of London 2025 International Arbitration Survey: 'The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration' (QMUL Survey 2025). On 23 March 2026, the ICC announced the adoption of a revised version of the ICC Arbitration Rules, which enters into force on 1 June 2026 (the "2026 Rules"). The 2026 Rules are available here and apply to all arbitrations commenced on or after that date, unless the parties agree otherwise.

Announcing the 2026 Rules, the President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, Claudia Salomon, emphasised the focus on making ICC arbitration "more efficient, while preserving the flexibility and procedural integrity that parties expect."

We highlight below the most significant changes in the 2026 Rules, which all users of ICC arbitration should know, and briefly outline some of the other notable revisions.

Key changes in the 2026 Rules

Most notably, the 2026 Rules:

• Remove the requirement for the tribunal to draw up its Terms of Reference (the "ToR").
• Introduce an express provision on confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings.
• Allow for urgent interim relief applications to be made to emergency arbitrators on an ex parte basis.
• Broaden the application of the existing expedited arbitration procedure.
• Create a new highly expedited procedure, which applies on an opt-in basis and provides for a 3-month timeframe for completion of the arbitration.

"The changes made in the 2026 Rules represent the biggest shake up to ICC arbitration for over a decade, with a clear focus on further increasing efficiency and streamlining procedures. The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference, which have long been criticised as a driver of cost and delay in the early stages of ICC arbitrations, illustrates this most clearly. This, alongside the updated Expedited Procedure provisions, the new opt-in Highly Expedited Arbitration and the express early determination procedure, makes clear that the ICC has heard and responded to user concerns about the cost and duration of arbitration. The practical operation of the new requirement for parties to submit to the ICC a list of persons and entities which they consider relevant for prospective arbitrators' conflicts searches, is one of several areas that will be watched closely."

Arne Fuchs, Global Head of International Arbitration, Ashurst.

Removal of the Terms of Reference

The requirement for the arbitral tribunal to draw up ToR has been a distinctive feature of ICC arbitration since it was first introduced in the 1955 version of the ICC Arbitration Rules. Under the most recent version, the ICC Arbitration Rules of 2021 (the "2021 Rules"), the ToR had to contain, among other things, a summary of the parties' respective claims and a list of issues to be determined by the tribunal. The aim was to crystallise the issues in dispute, ensure that all issues in dispute would be resolved and, potentially, focus the parties' minds on areas where settlement might be achieved.

However, the ToR have long been criticised as a cumbersome and time-consuming procedural exercise. In practice, preparing the ToR, which must be signed by all parties (or approved by the ICC Court if a party refuses), is nearly always controversial as the parties seek to leverage the ToR to present and support their respective narratives. This increases party costs and creates potential for delay. The possibility of dispensing with the ToR has been discussed in several previous revisions of the ICC Arbitration Rules but has always been rejected. Until now.

The 2026 Rules remove the requirement to draw up the ToR, while retaining their use as an optional case management technique, which the tribunal can adopt in appropriate cases. This is to be welcomed. In cases where the parties are sophisticated users of arbitration, inclined to proceed cooperatively, or are likely to benefit from additional structure, the tribunal may still draw up ToR if it considers this will assist in managing the proceedings efficiently. However, removing the mandatory requirement to draw them up should generally allow ICC arbitrations to proceed more rapidly.

Express confidentiality provision

The potential for confidentiality is one of the key features that draws users to international arbitration. It may, therefore, surprise some that the rules of one of the world's most popular arbitral institutions were previously silent on this matter. In practice, of course, the parties are at liberty to agree, and the tribunal could give directions on, confidentiality, which they typically do.

The 2026 Rules introduce a new Article 12(8), which expressly establishes broad confidentiality obligations on the tribunal (and any person appointed by it, including a tribunal secretary (Article 44(2))). These obligations cover all matters relating to the arbitration, including the existence of the arbitration, all pleadings and evidence, as well as all decisions, rulings, orders and awards. Similar obligations are imposed on the ICC Court and its Secretariat (Article 2, Appendix II).

However, while the introduction of a confidentiality obligation is a positive development, the new provision does not address confidentiality obligations of the parties. As such, it is narrower than that in some other arbitration rules. For example, confidentiality obligations in both the London Court of International Arbitration's (LCIA) Arbitration Rules 2020 (currently under review) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre's (SIAC) Arbitration Rules 2025 (SIAC Rules 2025) also extend to the parties themselves, as well as their representatives, and other participants such as witnesses. Nevertheless, the position arrived at under the 2026 Rules could be viewed as the result of a balancing exercise, reflecting differing views as to the appropriate levels of transparency in international arbitration, particularly in disputes involving public, or quasi-public, entities.

Either way, the parties, and the tribunal once appointed, should continue to consider carefully whether to provide for an express confidentiality regime (in the arbitration clause or otherwise, for example, in the context of Procedural Order No. 1), which binds the parties, their representatives and other potential participants in any arbitration.

Emergency arbitrator applications without notice

• Since 2012, the ICC Arbitration Rules have included provisions allowing parties requiring urgent interim relief before the constitution of the tribunal to request the appointment of an emergency arbitrator. These provisions have been iteratively updated in successive versions of the rules, most recently the 2021 Rules. However, a potential drawback to the emergency arbitrator procedure (under the ICC Arbitration Rules and many other arbitration rules) used to be that they generally require notice to be provided to the opposing party, which may undermine the effectiveness of any interim measures granted. As a result, some parties preferred to apply to a competent court, for example at the seat of arbitration, that allows such applications to be brought ex parte.
  
  The 2026 Rules seek to address this concern by introducing so-called "preliminary orders" (Article 7, Appendix IV). Under this procedure, a party may – at any stage of the emergency arbitrator proceedings – apply for a preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the emergency arbitrator application. Where such an order is requested, the ICC will not notify the other parties until the emergency arbitrator has decided the preliminary order application.
  
  The SIAC Rules 2025 introduced a similar procedure (termed a "preliminary protective order" in SIAC parlance). As we commented in our article on the key features of those rules, the introduction of a without notice procedure is a significant development, at least in theory. Along with the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration 2021, which permit without notice interim relief in "exceptional circumstances", these rules go some way towards making arbitration a one-stop shop, with parties no longer needing to rely on the courts for without notice interim relief.
  
  In practice, however, there are two key limitations, which may restrict the practical utility of the new preliminary orders procedure:
• There are certain types of relief, often those where without notice applications are most needed, which cannot effectively be granted in arbitration, including, for example, freezing orders; and
• The enforceability of a preliminary order under the 2026 Rules is at least open to question in some jurisdictions, as many national arbitration laws do not provide for the enforcement of emergency arbitrator orders, which do not qualify as awards enforceable under the New York Convention.

Some parties needing urgent interim relief on a without notice basis may therefore still prefer to resort to competent national courts. In this regard, the 2026 Rules confirm that the emergency arbitrator provisions "are not intended to prevent any party from seeking interim or conservatory measures" from a competent court (Article 9, Appendix IV). However, an additional complication is that certain national arbitration laws (including the Singaporean International Arbitration Act 1994 and the English Arbitration Act 1996) restrict the courts' ability to act to situations where the tribunal has no power or is unable for the time being to act effectively. As we noted in our discussion of the 2025 SIAC revisions, the fact that emergency arbitrators may be able to act where ex parte relief is required, could diminish the court's role in granting interim relief.

Expedited procedure expanded

• The expedited procedure provisions (EPP) in the ICC Arbitration Rules were introduced as part of the 2017 rules revision. Unless the parties expressly opt out, the EPP provides for a swift arbitration procedure that applies automatically to disputes below a certain value threshold, as well as where the parties so agree. The relevant value threshold was initially set at US$2 million. This was increased to US$3 million in the 2021 Rules for disputes arising under arbitration agreements entered into on or after 1 January 2021.
  
  Since its introduction, the ICC Court has administered 1,034 cases under the EPP, resulting in 591 awards, with 169 new EPP cases registered in 2025 (see ICC releases preliminary 2025 dispute resolution statistics (February 2026)).
  
  Reflecting the demand for this procedure, and users' increasing familiarity with it, the 2026 Rules increase the monetary threshold to US$4 million for arbitration agreements entered into on or after 1 June 2026.
  
  Surveys indicate that this may be welcomed by a large number of users. Expedited procedures (in general, including the ICC's EPP) were favoured by 50% of respondents to the QMUL Survey 2025 as the most effective way to enhance arbitral efficiency. Many of those respondents cited "excellent experiences" and indicated their willingness to use expedited procedures again. At the same time, significant differences exist between jurisdictions in relation to the typical amount in dispute; and in some jurisdictions an amount in dispute of US$ 4 million is substantial. The ICC was therefore well advised to proceed with incremental increases, giving it the opportunity to monitor how users react.
  
  Key features of the EPP under the 2026 Rules (Article 32 and Appendix V), include:
• The option for the ICC Court to appoint a sole arbitrator, even where the arbitration agreement provides for a three-member tribunal;
• The first case management conference (CMC) is to take place within 15 days of the file being transferred to the arbitrator;
•  No new claims can be brought after the initial CMC, without permission from the arbitrator;
• Broad discretion for the tribunal to adopt "any procedural measures" it considers appropriate, including restricting (or doing away with) document production, limiting submissions and evidence, as well as deciding the case on a documents-only basis (i.e. dispensing with a hearing).
• In principle, awards are to be rendered within six months of the CMC.

Of note, in January 2026, the ICC published guidance on the application of the EPP, which included a report on the EPP, a toolkit for arbitrators and a factsheet on the procedure.

Opt-in Highly Expedited Arbitration procedure added

Building on the success of the EPP, the 2026 Rules introduce a new fast-track arbitration procedure, the Highly Expedited Arbitration ("HEA"; Article 33, Appendix VI). The HEA applies where the parties expressly opt in, either in their arbitration agreement or subsequently, once a dispute has arisen. Unlike the EPP (which operates on an opt-out basis), there is no value threshold for application of the HEA, because it requires express party consent.

Key features of the new HEA procedure include:

• The claimant is required to submit its statement of claim with its request for arbitration and, within 30 days, the respondent must file its answer and statement of defence (together with any counterclaim);
• A sole arbitrator will be appointed directly by the ICC Court in all cases;
• Time limits are highly expedited, with the CMC to be held within seven days of the file being referred to the arbitrator and an award due three months after the CMC;
• Neither the joinder of additional parties, nor consolidation of multiple arbitrations, is permitted;
• The arbitrator can restrict, or entirely dispense with, document production and also limit submissions and evidence, and decide the dispute without a hearing.

The HEA is, in many respects, comparable to the Streamlined Procedure introduced to the SIAC Rules 2025 (discussed in our previous article), save that the Streamlined Procedure applies not only where parties opt in, but also automatically where the amount in dispute does not exceed SGD1 million.

Given the truncated procedure and highly expedited timetable, parties may be hesitant to opt in to the HEA on an open-ended basis, for all disputes that may arise. However, by not specifying a value threshold, the ICC allows party autonomy to take precedence. Parties can agree their own value threshold (or other criteria, though careful drafting would be required), taking account of factors such as:

• The likely nature, complexity and value of disputes that may arise in their specific transaction;
• The particular features of their relationship, including whether time is likely to be of the essence for resolving disputes; and
• The parties' relative sophistication and experience with arbitration.

On this basis, the introduction of the HEA is welcome. It promotes flexibility and allows the parties to further tailor their dispute resolution process to their particular needs, while increasing efficiency and controlling costs, both of which may be a barrier to the use of arbitration in some circumstances.

Other notable changes in the 2026 Rules

In addition to the key changes outlined above, the ICC has made various other less significant, but still notable, changes in the 2026 Rules. These include:

• Arbitrator disclosure standards revised (Article 12): As in the 2021 Rules, prospective arbitrators are required to disclose any facts or circumstances that may call into question the arbitrator's independence, in the eyes of the parties, or give rise to reasonable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality. While this leaves in place the apparent inconsistency between the disclosure obligations relating to "independence", on the one hand, and "impartiality", on the other, the 2026 Rules expressly require that any doubts on the arbitrator's part about whether to disclose something must be resolved in favour of disclosure. In addition, the 2026 Rules expressly clarify that arbitrators have a continuing duty of disclosure following their appointment. The parties are also now obliged to submit to the ICC, with their request for arbitration or answer to the request, a list of persons and entities, which they consider are relevant for (prospective) arbitrators to consider for the purposes of complying with their disclosure obligations.
• Electronic communication the default: As part of the drive for efficiency, the 2026 now provide that all written communications with the ICC Secretariat must be made by email (or another form of electronic communication, that creates a record of sending). Hardcopies of requests and answers are only to be used where the submitting party requests transmission by the Secretariat against receipt, by registered post or courier, or electronic transmission is not practicable (Article 3(1) and (2)).
• Time limit for final award: The timeline for delivery of a final award is of critical importance to parties. Recognising that the six-month time limit from finalisation of the ToR was rarely adhered to under the 2021 Rules (and further to the removal of the requirement to draw up the ToR), the 2026 Rules require the President of the ICC Court to fix (and amend, if necessary) the time limit for rendering the award (Article 34). The President will set this time limit, taking into account the procedural calendar fixed at, or following, the CMC. Virtual tribunal deliberations are now expressly permissible (Article 19(3)), while arbitrators can also now sign awards electronically and in counterparts, and request that the Secretariat to notify the award to the parties in paper form or electronic format (Article 38).
• Introduction of early determination procedure (Article 30): Similarly welcome is the introduction of an express provision in the 2026 Rules allowing the tribunal, on application by a party, to make an early determination that certain claims or defences are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside its jurisdiction. The tribunal is given broad discretion as to the appropriate procedure to be followed, provided that the parties have a reasonable opportunity to present their case. While ICC tribunals were considered to already have this power under their powers of case management (as reflected in paragraphs 109-114 of the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration – 01-01-2021), the express introduction of a provision into the 2026 Rules may highlight this procedural avenue to more parties facing frivolous claims or defences, as well as reassure tribunals about using it. This rationale also underlay the introduction in 2025 of an express statutory provision on summary determination into the English Arbitration Act 1996 (new Section 39A) (we discussed this and other reforms to the English Arbitration Act in this article).

Conclusion

"The ICC has been bold in some areas, including the removal of the Terms of Reference and the introduction of a new ex parte phase to emergency arbitrator procedures, which is welcome. However, in other areas, compromises have been made. For example, the conspicuous absence in previous versions of confidentiality provisions has been addressed in the 2026 Rules. But its limited scope does not relieve parties of the need to make their own confidentiality arrangements or seek an order from the tribunal, reflecting the spectrum of views as regards the level of confidentiality or transparency that may be appropriate in different disputes. Equally, the 2026 Rules' silence on AI means that we are looking to the forthcoming report of the ICC Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in Dispute Resolution to provide useful guidance in this critical area."
Sylvia Tee, Partner, Ashurst
 

The 2026 Rules represent a significant update to ICC arbitration and procedures. In particular, the removal of the ToR, which had been a longstanding area of criticism from users and the tweaks to the EPP, alongside the introduction of the new HEA, respond positively to user feedback and preferences.

At the same time, the new confidentiality provision is more limited than some observers expected and does not relieve parties of the need to agree their own confidentiality agreement or apply to the tribunal for a confidentiality order. The use of AI is one area that observers might have expected the 2026 Rules to address. While the detailed aspects of AI's use in arbitration proceedings are better dealt with by way of ad hoc institutional guidelines and tribunal directions, some fundamental aspects could have been addressed. For example, provisions clearly requiring the parties and their representatives to take responsibility for the accuracy of generative AI outputs and ensuring that AI does not compromise the integrity of the arbitration, confidentiality or information security would have been positive. An express requirement on arbitrators not to delegate any aspect of their decision-making responsibility would also have been welcome.

However, in 2025, the ICC's Commission on Arbitration and ADR specifically established a Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in Dispute Resolution. The Task Force's goals are to offer practical guidance to arbitrators and parties, and provide thought leadership on AI-driven innovation, while safeguarding fundamental principles in international dispute resolution. With its work ongoing, additional guidance on these issues will be forthcoming.