INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules: less formalism, more active case management
Update note | July 2026
The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules entered into force on 1 June 2026 and apply to any arbitration commenced on or after that date, unless otherwise agreed. They do not alter the institutional architecture —the Court retains the appointment, confirmation and challenge of arbitrators, the fixing of costs and the scrutiny of the draft award (Article 37)—, but instead reorder the initial phase, broaden the available procedural modalities and equip the arbitral tribunal with tools to narrow the subject matter of the arbitration at an early stage. The changes are concentrated in five areas.
1. The Terms of Reference are no longer mandatory
The 2026 Rules remove the mandatory character of the Terms of Reference: the arbitral tribunal retains the discretion to draw them up where it considers them useful for case management, but they are no longer a necessary procedural milestone.
Centre stage passes to the case management conference (CMC): Article 24(1) requires it to be held within thirty days of the transmission of the file —extendable by the Secretary General— and Article 24(2) requires the procedural timetable to be fixed at that conference. Once the initial CMC has been held, no party may introduce new claims without the authorisation of the arbitral tribunal (Article 25); and, the signature of the Terms of Reference having been eliminated, it falls to the President of the Court to fix and extend the time limit for the final award in accordance with that timetable (Article 34).
The milestone once marked by a document delimiting the dispute is now marked by an act of case management: claims, defences and evidentiary strategy must be defined before the initial CMC.
2. Expedited procedure (EPP): threshold raised to USD 4 million
The expedited procedure provisions (EPP, Appendix V) apply automatically where the amount in dispute does not exceed the Threshold Amount, or by agreement of the parties (Article 1(2)). Article 1(3) raises that threshold to USD 4,000,000 for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026, and retains those of USD 3,000,000 (1 January 2021 – 1 June 2026) and USD 2,000,000 (1 March 2017 – 1 January 2021).
They do not apply to agreements concluded before 1 March 2017, where there is an opt-out, or where the Court considers their application inappropriate (Article 1(4)), and the Court may determine at any time that they shall cease to apply (Article 1(6)). Under the EPP a sole arbitrator may be appointed notwithstanding any contrary stipulation (Article 2(1)), the initial CMC is held within fifteen days of the transmission of the file (Article 3(1)) and the final award must be rendered within the following six months, subject to extension (Article 4). In contracts of moderate value, silence amounts to a choice.
3. Highly expedited arbitration (HEAP): Article 33 and Appendix VI
The most far-reaching innovation is the highly expedited arbitration provisions (HEAP), which operate only by agreement of all parties (opt-in) and irrespective of the amount in dispute (Article 33), whether upon agreeing the arbitration clause —the ICC offers a model clause— or once the dispute has arisen. Under Appendix VI:
- the Request for Arbitration must incorporate the statement of claim, and the Answer the statement of defence and, where applicable, any counterclaim, together with their legal grounds and, so far as possible, the evidence (Articles 2(1), 2(2), 2(5) and 2(6));
- the time limits under Article 2 may not be extended save by agreement of the parties: twenty days for comments on the appointment of the sole arbitrator (Article 2(4)) and for their joint nomination (Article 4), thirty days for the Answer (Article 2(5)) and seven days for the initial CMC;
- joinder of additional parties and consolidation are not permitted (Article 3 of Appendix VI), and the sole arbitrator may dispense with document production, limit written submissions and witness statements and decide on a documents-only basis, without a hearing;
- the final award is to be rendered within three months of the initial CMC —a period that includes scrutiny of the draft by the Court and notification—, subject to extension;
- and the parties may agree, to the extent permitted by the applicable law, on an award without reasons, a possibility unavailable in other ICC procedures, the advisability of which must be weighed against the risk of annulment at the seat or of refusal of recognition and enforcement where this constitutes a ground.
It is a distinct regime, not a variant of the expedited procedure: its suitability depends on complexity, not on the amount in dispute, and it is not advisable where there is voluminous expert evidence or a plurality of parties.
4. Early determination of claims and defences (Article 30)
Article 30(1) recognises the power to apply for the early determination of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, which retains discretion to allow the application and to adopt the appropriate procedural measures, after consulting the parties (Article 30(2)).
Its codification brings predictability to a mechanism that already appeared in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals and that tribunals had been applying. The “manifest” standard is demanding: to dispose of untenable positions before substantial costs are incurred, not to adjudicate the merits.
5. Emergency arbitrator: non-signatories and ex parte preliminary orders
Article 1(2)(c) of Appendix IV extends emergency relief to non-signatories: it may be sought against any party in respect of which the President of the Court is satisfied, prima facie and on the basis of the application, that an arbitration agreement binding that party may exist. The exclusions under Article 1(3) remain: agreements concluded before 1 January 2012, opt-out, and agreements arising out of an investment protection treaty or statute.
Article 7 introduces the preliminary order: any party may apply for one at any stage, ex parte, to prevent another party from frustrating the purpose of the urgent measure; once granted, the emergency arbitrator must immediately give the other parties an opportunity to be heard —a due process safeguard— and may modify the order. Its usefulness is evident in the face of asset dissipation or the destruction of evidence.
Other changes of interest
- Enhanced disclosure, under the principle “when in doubt, disclose”: any doubt is resolved in favour of disclosure (Article 12(2)), without disclosure in itself establishing a lack of independence or impartiality (Article 12(4)); the parties shall submit with the Request and the Answer a reasoned list of persons and entities for conflict checks (Article 12(5)), and the duty to disclose third-party funding remains (Article 12(6)).
- Express duty of confidentiality of the arbitrators (Article 12(8)), save for information in the public domain, agreement of the parties or a legal requirement.
- Tribunal secretary (Article 44): the same duties of independence and impartiality as the arbitrators, a statement of acceptance, and a prohibition on delegating to the secretary the powers of deliberation and decision; remuneration is limited to reimbursement of justified expenses (Appendix III, Article 7).
- Digitalisation: electronic communications as the rule (Article 3), deliberations and hearings in person, hybrid or remote (Articles 19(3), 24(5) and 27(1)), and awards signed electronically or in counterparts (Article 38(1)).
- Extension to forty-five days of the time limit for submitting on the tribunal’s own initiative a draft correction of the award (Article 39(1)), and the prevailing status of the English version (Article 48).
Practical considerations
The 2026 Rules do not impose a faster procedure: they broaden the options and shift to the parties the burden of choosing well. When drafting the arbitration clause it is advisable to check whether the foreseeable amount in dispute places the contract within the new EPP Threshold Amount; to assess whether the HEAP should be agreed and, if so, whether it is advisable to waive the reasons for the award in light of the seat and the likely place of enforcement; and to review the consistency between the agreed number of arbitrators and the applicable regime.
Once the dispute has arisen, the consequence is one of case management: with the initial CMC as the cut-off for new claims and early determination available from the outset, the theory of the case, the evidentiary strategy and the jurisdictional objections must be built beforehand, not afterwards. The reform front-loads the effort rather than reducing it.
I hope this has been helpful in resolving some of the questions and concerns surrounding this topic. As professionals in the field of National and International Litigation and Arbitration, we would like to offer you our services to assist you with any need you may have in these areas. If you require advice or would like to know more about our skills and experience, please do not hesitate to contact us. You can find me on our website www.lexincorp.com or send us an email at lcruz@lexincorp.com and infohn@lexincorp.com. It will be a pleasure to work with you and help you achieve your objectives. See you soon!
