The ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 (2026 ICC Rules) entered into force on 1 June 2026, replacing the 2021 ICC Rules for arbitrations commenced on or after that date, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The revised Rules introduce important procedural innovations that affect virtually every stage of an ICC arbitration.

The following sections provide an overview of five key changes introduced by the 2026 ICC Rules that are expected to have a significant impact on the day-to-day conduct of ICC arbitrations.

1. The End of an Era: No Mandatory Terms of Reference

The most significant innovation introduced by the 2026 ICC Rules concerns the Terms of Reference (ToR). Under former Article 23(1), as soon as the arbitral tribunal received the file, it was required to draw up the Terms of Reference. As of 1 June 2026, however, they are no longer mandatory and will be prepared only if the parties so choose or the tribunal so directs.

The role traditionally performed by the Terms of Reference has largely been subsumed into the mandatory initial Case Management Conference (CMC). Under Article 24(1), within 30 days of receiving the file, the tribunal must hold the initial CMC rather than submit the ToR to the ICC Court. The CMC may be conducted in person, by videoconference or in hybrid form (Article 24(5)). At or shortly after the CMC, the tribunal must establish the procedural timetable and transmit it to the ICC Secretariat.

The initial CMC also replaces the ToR as the procedural cut-off for new claims. Under former Article 23(4), no new claims could be introduced after the approval of the ToR without the tribunal's authorisation. In practice, the ToR operated as a submission agreement concluded after the dispute had arisen. Under the new Article 25, no new claims may be introduced after the initial CMC without the tribunal's permission. There is no longer a separate submission agreement: claims and defences should instead be fully articulated in the Request for Arbitration, the Answer and any Counterclaims. The grounds on which the tribunal may authorise new claims remain unchanged.

The 2026 Rules also modify the timetable for rendering the final award. Instead of running six months from the approval of the ToR, the applicable deadline is now fixed – and, where appropriate, extended – by the President or the ICC Court, taking into account the procedural timetable established by the tribunal or a reasoned request submitted by the tribunal (Article 34).

By making the ToR optional rather than mandatory, the 2026 ICC Rules strike a balance between efficiency and flexibility. They remove a procedural step that had often become little more than a formality, while preserving the possibility of using Terms of Reference whenever they can genuinely add value to the proceedings.

Practical takeaway. The ToR are no longer the procedural stage at which the scope of the dispute is defined. Parties should therefore ensure that their claims and defences are fully articulated from the outset in the Request for Arbitration, the Answer and any Counterclaims. For arbitrations commenced under the 2021 Rules, the existing ToR remain operative.

2. Faster Proceedings: Expanded Expedited Arbitration and the New HEAP

The 2026 Rules further strengthen the mechanisms designed to ensure a faster and more efficient resolution of disputes. To that end, for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026, the monetary threshold for the automatic application of the Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP) has been increased from USD 3 million to USD 4 million. 

The higher threshold significantly expands the scope of the EPP. According to the ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics 2025, published in June 2026, since the EPP was introduced in 2017 the ICC Court has administered 1,034 expedited cases, resulting in 591 awards. In 2025 alone, 169 new cases were conducted under the EPP, of which 158 fell within its automatic application and 11 resulted from the parties' express agreement or opt-in. Against this background, the ICC estimates that more than 40% of its arbitrations will now fall within the automatic application of the Expedited Procedure. Party autonomy nevertheless remains unaffected. Parties may opt out of the Expedited Procedure or opt in regardless of the amount in dispute (Appendix V, Articles 1(4)(b) and 1(2)(b)), subject to the exceptions set out in Article 1(4) of Appendix V.

The most ambitious innovation introduced by the 2026 ICC Rules is the new Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (HEAP), governed by Article 33 and Appendix VI. Unlike the Expedited Procedure, the HEAP is available only on an opt-in basis. It provides for a sole arbitrator, an initial CMC to be held within seven days of the transmission of the file, and a final award to be rendered within three months of the CMC.

The procedure is designed to maximise procedural efficiency. The tribunal may limit document production, written submissions and witness evidence, and may decide the dispute solely on the basis of the documents submitted, without holding a hearing.

The most innovative – and at the same time most controversial – feature is the possibility for the parties to waive the requirement for a reasoned award (Appendix VI, Article 7(2)). While this option may substantially reduce the time and cost of the proceedings, it requires careful consideration. Unreasoned awards may not be allowed under the applicable lex arbitri and may face significant obstacles at the enforcement stage because several jurisdictions treat a statement of reasons as a condition for recognition under the applicable arbitration legislation or as a public policy requirement. The waiver should therefore be agreed only after verifying that it is compatible with the requirements of the applicable lex arbitri and potential jurisdictions in which enforcement is realistically anticipated.

Practical takeaway. Before opting into the HEAP, parties should assess not only the potential savings in time and costs, but also whether the dispute is suitable for such a streamlined procedure and whether an unreasoned award may raise annulment and enforcement concerns. 

3. Independence and Disclosure: New Obligations and Greater Transparency

The 2026 ICC Rules do not change the basic standard governing arbitrators' disclosure obligations, but they strengthen its practical application. Under Article 12(2), prospective arbitrators must resolve any doubt in favour of disclosure. This is complemented by new Article 12(4), which expressly provides that disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality. The provision codifies a principle already reflected in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals and is intended to promote greater transparency by preventing prudent disclosure from being used strategically as the sole basis for challenging an arbitrator. The new Rules reflect and consolidate an established trend: according to ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, 41% of confirmed or appointed arbitrators made disclosures prior to their confirmation or appointment in 2025, up from 31% in 2020.

The most significant innovation, however, concerns the parties. Article 12(5) now requires parties, when filing the Request for Arbitration, the Answer, the Request for Joinder or the Answer to a Request for Joinder, to submit a list of the persons and entities they consider relevant for conflict checks, together with the reasons for their inclusion.

The new regime is not without its challenges. The Rules do not specify the consequences of submitting incomplete or excessively broad lists, leaving room for potential strategic use aimed at narrowing the pool of prospective arbitrators.

Practical takeaway. Before filing the Request for Arbitration or the Answer, counsel should carefully identify the client's corporate group, any third-party funders and all persons or entities relevant for conflict checks. 

4. Confidentiality: An Express Duty for Arbitrators

Confidentiality has been a defining feature of ICC arbitration since the first confidentiality provisions were introduced in 1998. The 2026 ICC Rules continue this evolution by expressly imposing, for the first time, a duty of confidentiality on arbitrators (Article 12(8)), thereby filling a gap left by the 2021 Rules.

The Rules do not, however, introduce a corresponding general duty of confidentiality for the parties, preserving the flexible approach adopted under previous editions and leaving it to the parties to regulate confidentiality where appropriate.

Although the broad exceptions set out in Article 12(8) may limit the practical impact of the new provision, it remains particularly significant in today's increasingly digital arbitration environment, where confidentiality has become an even more sensitive issue.

Practical takeaway. Following the removal of mandatory ToR, parties should address confidentiality from the outset of the proceedings, ideally at the first CMC, by incorporating appropriate confidentiality provisions into the subsequent procedural order or a separate agreement.

5. Digital by Default

The 2026 Rules further consolidate the digitalisation of arbitral proceedings. Article 3(1) establishes electronic communications as the default method for written communications, while paper communications are limited to cases where a party so requests or electronic transmission is not practicable. Article 38 expressly authorises electronic signatures, electronic notification of awards and the signing of awards in counterparts.

The reform reflects a broader commitment to efficiency, sustainability and streamlined procedure. The 2026 ICC Rules do not, however, prescribe any particular form of electronic signature, leaving the choice to the parties and the arbitral tribunal according to the circumstances of the case, notably legal requirements for validity of electronic signatures. While this flexibility facilitates the conduct of the proceedings, it does not eliminate potential annulment and enforcement issues: certain jurisdictions may still require an original wet-ink signature for the validity of an award and for its the recognition or enforcement. Furthermore, electronic signatures may not be recognized in all jurisdictions, which also creates a risk that the award may not be enforceable.

Practical takeaway. Before agreeing on the method of signing and notifying the award, parties should verify the applicable requirements in the jurisdiction of the seat of the arbitration and in the jurisdictions where recognition or enforcement of the award is likely to be sought.

6. Call to Action: A Practical Checklist for Your Next ICC Arbitration

• ToR — Consider whether they add genuine value; ensure claims and defences are fully articulated in the Request for Arbitration, the Answer and any Counterclaims from the outset (the initial CMC is the new procedural cut-off for new claims)
   
• Expedited Procedure — Check the USD 4M threshold (agreements on/after 1 June 2026); opt out for complex cases, opt in where speed is a priority
   
• HEAP — Assess suitability for a three-month, sole-arbitrator format; verify validity, as well as recognition and enforcement requirements before waiving the right to a reasoned award; if opting in, include a specific clause in the arbitration agreement
   
• Independence & Disclosure — Map the client’s corporate group and identify funders before filing; prepare the Article 12(5) list with reasons for each entry
   
• Confidentiality — Raise at the first CMC and address in the first procedural order or a separate agreement
   
• Digitalisation — Verify validity, as well as recognition and enforcement requirements before relying on electronic signatures or electronic notification of the award