The 2026 ICC Rules Unpacked: What’s New?

On 1 June 2026, a new edition of the ICC Rules of Arbitration (the “2026 ICC Rules”) comes into effect. Given their widespread global usage, this is a significant development for the international arbitration landscape this year. Applicable to ICC arbitrations filed from today onward, the 2026 ICC Rules are intended to deliver greater efficiency, a stronger disclosure framework and increased procedural flexibility and to provide new options for parties seeking to increase the efficiency of resolving their disputes. The 2026 ICC Rules introduce several significant practical changes to the way ICC cases are conducted but are not a “wholesale” rewrite of the 2021 Rules. Rather, they seek to modernise the process to keep in step with the needs of parties. 

In this Legal Update, we explore the key changes affecting parties, arbitrators and counsel. 

Essential Changes

The most essential changes embodied in the 2026 ICC Rules involve (1) the elimination of the requirement for Terms of Reference, which, in turn, has yielded several changes to procedural time frames and raised the importance of the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”), (2) the jurisdictional scope of emergency arbitrations and (3) the framework for arbitrator disclosures.

1. Removal of Mandatory Terms of Reference

Under the 2026 ICC Rules, Terms of Reference (“ToR”) are no longer a mandatory step in ICC arbitration proceedings (although tribunals retain discretion to use them as a case management tool). As arbitration has developed and parties have sought enhanced procedural flexibility, improved efficiency and less formality, the ICC reports that the ToR framework has come under strain. For example, the 30-day period within which to submit the ToR to the ICC Court and the need to set out a list of issues so early in the case have been challenging for both arbitrators and parties.   

From 1 June 2026, ICC arbitral procedure provides that the CMC is now the “central procedural milestone” for structuring efficient proceedings. The CMC must be held within 30 days of the tribunal receiving the case file, and the procedural timetable should be reported to the ICC Secretariat (no longer the ICC Court) shortly thereafter. Parties wishing to clarify issues early on, or to amend or supplement the arbitration clause, will now need to agree to do so in an early procedural order.

A. Time Limits for Issuing Awards Tailored to the Case

The ICC noted that the default six-month time limit (from the ToR) for issuing awards in the 2021 Rules was frequently extended. The 2026 ICC Rules vest the President with authority to fix the time limit for rendering the final award, taking into account the procedural timetable established at the initial CMC or a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal (Article 34). Time limits for issuing awards will now be tailored to each case. This offers the benefit of procedural flexibility but may make it harder for parties to plan for post-award activities.

B. Parties May Agree to Modify Time Limits But no New Claims After the Initial CMC

Article 4(2) of the 2026 ICC Rules permits the parties to agree to “modify” time limits in the Rules. This is a broader formulation than the 2021 equivalent (Article 39(1)), which permitted only shortening of time limits. Any modification agreed after the tribunal is constituted requires the tribunal’s approval. This is intended to support parties’ autonomy to tailor proceedings to their needs.

Another change is that, after the initial CMC, parties may not introduce new claims without obtaining authorisation from the arbitral tribunal (Article 25). Under the 2021 Rules, no new claims could be made after the ToR were signed or approved without the tribunal’s authorisation. The elimination of the requirement for ToRs means that the initial CMC becomes the central procedural milestone. The 2026 ICC Rules impose a prohibition on new claims after the initial CMC unless authorised by the tribunal. The factors that tribunals must consider before authorising new claims include the nature of the claims and stage of the proceedings, as well as cost implications and any other relevant circumstances outlined in Article 25. Parties should take note that this shifts the “cut-off” to an earlier procedural moment, and parties now must identify all their claims as proactively and as comprehensively as possible. Requests and Answers may require more careful preparation, including early identification of claims, relief sought, relevant entities and individuals for disclosure purposes, and procedural issues to be addressed at the initial CMC.

2. Emergency Arbitration

Emergency arbitration (“EA”) may now be initiated against non-signatories where the President of the ICC Court is satisfied on a prima facie review of the application that a binding arbitration agreement may exist. This amendment reflects the evolution of ICC practice and recognises the “present-day realities of international trade.” Responding parties named in EA applications will not have an opportunity to respond to the application and therefore now have an increased risk of being subject to urgent interim measures, even where they are not direct signatories to the arbitration agreement.

The tribunal will later carry out a full jurisdictional analysis without being bound by the President’s decision.

The 2026 ICC Rules also now expressly recognise preliminary orders (including ex parte orders) directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of an EA application. Where such orders are issued, due process is safeguarded by all other parties being afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case and the emergency arbitrator being able to amend or revoke the preliminary order on the basis of all parties’ views.

3. Arbitrator Disclosure Framework – Practice Formalised and Enhanced

The 2026 ICC Rules formalise the ICC’s disclosure framework in multiple ways:

• The existing disclosure standard and nature of the duty to disclose is formalised by express rules that (a) doubts a prospective arbitrator may have about whether to make a disclosure must be resolved in favour of disclosure and (b) a disclosure does not, in itself, establish lack of independence or impartiality. This standard was previously outlined in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals (“Note”) and applied uniformly across proceedings as a standard practice. It is now elevated to the status of formal Rules in Articles 12(2) and 12(4), respectively;
• The Rules now expressly describe the arbitrator’s disclosure obligation as “an ongoing duty to immediately disclose” relevant facts and circumstances, strengthening the language from the 2021 formulation, which simply stated the arbitrator “shall immediately disclose” (Article 12(3)). This duty had been presumed to be continual as reflected in the Note but is now formalised in the Rules; and
• Early in the case, each party must now submit to the Secretariat a list of entities/individuals that it considers relevant to the prospective arbitrator’s disclosure assessment with reasons (Article 12(5)). Parties and their counsel will need to create a new protocol for preparing this list of related entities and individuals, which needs to be submitted at the time parties file their Request or Answer (or Request for Joinder, Answer to a Request for Joinder or Request for an extension of time for submitting an Answer). The list aims at assisting arbitrators, who ultimately remain responsible for their own disclosures.

As before, a disclosure does not in itself amount to admission of a conflict, and these changes provide a reassuring and transparent process for arbitrator disclosures. Updates to the disclosure framework will allow parties and counsel to have an increased and more active role in the identification of potential conflicts.

Key Changes to increase efficiency

Several additional changes introduced in the 2026 ICC Rules centre on increasing efficiency in disputes. This includes changes to the existing Expedited Procedure and the introduction of new options: a Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure and the formalisation of a mechanism for early determination.

1. New Early Determination Mechanism

The 2026 ICC Rules introduce a new mechanism permitting any party to apply for early determination of claims or defenses on the grounds that they are (a) manifestly without merit or (b) manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction (Article 30(1)). The arbitral tribunal has discretion to decide whether to allow such an application to proceed and, if so, shall adopt appropriate procedural measures after consulting the parties. While this is a new provision in the 2026 ICC Rules, it reflects longstanding practice conducted under guidance in the Note. The provision now formally gives respondents, as well as claimants facing counterclaims, a powerful tool to dispose of unmeritorious claims at an early stage, potentially saving considerable time and cost.

2. Increased Expedited Procedure Threshold and New Highly Expedited Procedure

The ICC’s Expedited Procedure Provisions ("EPP") - which provide for the default appointment of a sole arbitrator, a six-month timeline for awards, shorter procedural timelines, limits on submissions and reduced costs - remain unchanged, but the threshold for their automatic application has now increased from US$3 million to US$4 million for claims brought under arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026, broadening the range of disputes eligible for expedited arbitration (the threshold is R$12.8 million for cases administered from the São Paolo office). As it will take a number of years for arbitration agreements dated June 2026 onward to lead to disputes, the impact of this change will be mid- to long-term rather than short-term. As has always been the case, parties retain the autonomy to opt in or out of the EPP regardless of whether their case falls within the automatic threshold.

The 2026 ICC Rules also introduce new Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”) at Appendix VI. The HEAP applies on an opt-in basis only, leaving it up to the parties to specify if and when they want them to apply when drafting their arbitration clauses (or in a post-dispute agreement). If parties opt in, the arbitration will be decided by a sole arbitrator (who must be nominated by the parties within 20 days from the respondent’s receipt of the Request and Statement of Claim). The sole arbitrator must render the award within three months of the initial CMC date. The case needs to be frontloaded to facilitate this; the Claimant must submit its Statement of Claim (and supporting evidence) with the Request, and the Respondent must submit the Statement of Defence (and supporting evidence) with the Answer. There will typically be no document production and no hearing. A unique feature is that the parties may agree to an award without reasons where allowed under the applicable law.

Parties will need to carefully consider if the HEAP are appropriate for their disputes (potentially ideal for disputes where time is of the essence and low-value disputes) and assess enforcement risk and the mandatory provisions of the arbitration law at the seat when considering whether to contract for an award without reasons.

Other Changes

More changes that parties, arbitrators and counsel also need to be aware of include:

1. Confidentiality

The 2026 ICC Rules impose an express confidentiality obligation on arbitrators (Article 12(8)). This obligation does not extend to the parties, however, and ICC arbitrations remain not confidential by default. Parties may agree the extent of confidentiality they wish to apply in the arbitration. The tribunal’s ability to make orders regarding confidentiality of proceedings in light of such an agreement is unchanged.

2. Investment Protection and State-related Disputes

The 2026 ICC Rules appear to expand certain provisions relevant to investment-related disputes by adding references to arbitration agreements arising from an “investment protection law,” in addition to treaties. The arbitrator nationality restriction now also applies to arbitration agreements arising from investment protection law (Article 14(6)). There is a parallel change in Appendix IV, Article 1(3)(c), which excludes the Emergency Arbitrator Provisions where the arbitration agreement arises from a treaty or an investment protection law.

3. Formal Recognition of Tribunal Secretaries

The 2026 ICC Rules introduce an express provision (Article 44) permitting the arbitral tribunal, after consulting the parties, to appoint a tribunal secretary who works under the tribunal’s direction and control without delegating decision-making authority. Tribunal secretaries must satisfy the same independence, impartiality and confidentiality requirements as arbitrators. This codifies what was previously only addressed in a practice note. However, the Rules do not go on to codify who ultimately is responsible for paying the fees of a tribunal secretary: the parties or the arbitrator(s) whom they assist. The question as to whether secretary fees should be deducted from arbitrator fees or charged in addition remains a matter for each dispute.

4. Extension of Time for Tribunal’s Award Correction

The time limit for the arbitral tribunal to submit its own corrections of clerical, computational or typographical errors has been extended from 30 days under the 2021 Rules to 45 days from notification of the award (Article 39(1)). This gives tribunals more time to seek comment from the parties, which is now required.

5. Modernisation (Electronic Communications and Electronically Signed Awards)

The 2026 ICC Rules expressly permit the arbitral tribunal, after consulting the parties, to sign the award electronically, sign in counterparts and/or request the Secretariat to notify the award in electronic format (Article 38(1)). The Secretariat is required to “keep an original” of each award either in hard copy or electronically rather than requiring physical deposit. This modernisation reduces logistical burdens and may accelerate the notification of awards.

The 2026 ICC Rules also expressly provide that the arbitral tribunal may decide, after consulting the parties, that hearings will be conducted in person, in hybrid form, or by videoconference, teleconference or other electronic communication. Similarly, the tribunal may deliberate “in hybrid form or by videoconference, teleconference or other form of electronic communication,” expanding on the 2021 provision that it could deliberate “at any location” (Article 19(3)). This codifies the post-pandemic shift toward remote proceedings and gives tribunals express authority to impose remote hearings where appropriate.

6. Advance on Costs Now Fixed by the Secretary General

Under the 2026 ICC Rules, the Secretary General (rather than the Court) fixes the advance on costs, calculated in accordance with the amount in dispute and the Schedule of Fees. This administrative delegation may speed up cost-fixing but also concentrate decision-making authority in the Secretariat.

7. Truncated Tribunal

The 2026 ICC Rules introduce the option for the ICC Court to decide, subject to applicable laws, to proceed with a truncated tribunal rather than replacing an arbitrator who has died or been removed by the ICC Court (Article 16(5)). The new provision applies where the death or removal occurred after the last hearing or the filing of the last substantive submissions, whichever is later. Under the 2021 Rules, the ICC Court could only proceed with a truncated tribunal after the closing of the proceedings.

Should you wish to discuss how the 2026 ICC Rules impact your business, please contact your usual Mayer Brown contact or any of the authors.