The ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 took effect on 1 June 2026. The 2026 Rules align well with innovations seen in the SIAC and HKIAC Rules and address several points that, in practice, were not operating commensurate with the Rules. Key changes concern: removal of the mandatory status of the Terms of Reference that has long distinguished the ICC Arbitration Rules in contrast to others; early determination of ‘bad’ claims; greater focus on arbitrator disclosures; and introduction of Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”). The 2026 Rules also codify some aspects of the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of Arbitration in 2017. The 2026 Rules mark greater harmonisation with SIAC and HKIAC Rules and current practice amongst leading arbitrators.                       

Key Points

No Mandatory Terms of Reference

Article 23 of the 2021 Rules says the arbitral tribunal shall draw up a Terms of Reference. The purpose of this document was to codify the parties’ consent to arbitrate, record procedural agreements, and define the precise scope of the dispute. Article 23(4) of the 2021 Rules often creates procedural disputes when a party seeks to add new claims. Whilst the 2026 Rules dispense with mandatory Terms of Reference, the question of new claims will now need to focus on claims and counterclaims as framed at the initial CMC (Article 25). In determining whether to allow new claims after the initial CMC, the tribunal shall take into account the nature of the new claims; the stage of proceedings; cost implications; and other relevant circumstances. The ICC suggests that parties should articulate claims “as fully and as comprehensively as possible in Request for Arbitration and Answer and Counterclaim stages”.[1] The ICC confirms that tribunals retain discretion to adopt Terms of Reference.[2] Thus, it is apprehended that Terms of Reference will still be adopted by some parties and practitioners.

Early Determination

Under Article 30 of the 2026 Rules, parties may apply for early determination of claims or defences that are “manifestly without merit” or “manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction”.  This test, “manifestly without merit”, is arguably higher than the arbitral tribunal’s power under Section 39A of the English Arbitration Act, 2025, to make an award on a summary basis where there is “no real prospect” of success. Article 30 aligns with other Rules such as Article 43 of HKIAC Rules 2024, Rule 47 of SIAC Rules 2025, and Article 22(viii) of LCIA Rules 2020.

Expedited Arbitration and Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions

Under the 2021 Rules, claims that were US$ 3 million or lower were dealt with under the Expedited Procedure. Whilst this threshold continues for claims under an arbitration agreement concluded between 1 January 2021 and 1 June 2026, for agreements on or after 1 June 2026, the threshold is now US$ 4 million. Parties will have to consider at the outset whether to ‘opt-out’ of this procedure.

The 2026 Rules also introduces HEAP. HEAP, dealt with under Article 33 and Appendix VI to the 2026 Rules, is purely on an ‘opt-in’ basis. A benefit of HEAP is that an initial CMC will be held within 7 days of the tribunal receiving the file, and an award must be rendered within 3 months of the initial CMC (unless the time is extended upon a reasoned request by the tribunal). This procedure may remind Readers of the so-called “100-day Arbitration” advocated by many jurists.

Increased Power for Emergency Arbitrator

Article 1(2)(c) of Appendix IV sets out that the emergency arbitrator provisions may now also apply against non-signatories where the President of the ICC Court is satisfied “that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist”. This change reflects the pattern seen across 287 Emergency Arbitration applications (made since 2012), which indicated that non-signatories were important. The emergency arbitrator can now make ex-parte Preliminary Orders under Article 7(1), Appendix IV.

Arbitrator Disclosure Obligations

The 2026 Rules clarify that disclosure by itself does not establish a lack of independence or impartiality, but calls on arbitrators to err on the side of disclosing where there may be “any doubt”. While arbitrators are ultimately responsible for disclosures, parties are now required to provide a list of persons and entities (with reasons) that arbitrators should consider for the purpose of disclosure.  This is interesting. Cases such as Eurocom Ltd v Siemens Plc [2014] EWHC 3710 (TCC)and Cofely Ltd v Bingham and Knowles Limited [2016] EWHC 240 (Comm)have shown that a party can be mischievous in seeking to construct lists in a deliberate attempt to conflict and exclude certain decision-makers.

Corrections to the Award

Under Article 39(1), the arbitral tribunal may own its own initiative but only after seeking parties’ comments correct a clerical, computational or typographical error, or errors of a similar nature. The time for doing so has been extended from 30 days under the 2021 Rules to 45 days. The main change is that the arbitral tribunal will now have to seek the parties’ comments before making corrections.

Other Changes

In addition to the Key Points, other changes made by the 2026 Rules include:

• Article 12(8) requires arbitrators to keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration. The 2026 Rules do not place a similar default and blanket confidentiality obligation on the parties themselves, and it is open for the parties to tailor the confidentiality provisions to meet their specific needs.
• A party may be Joined after the tribunal has been constituted, upon the additional party’s consent and the tribunal’s acceptance. (Article 8(6)). This is different from the 2021 Rules where a party may be Joined on consent of all parties or the tribunal’s decision (Article 7(1)).
• The notion under the 2021 Rules for an Award to be rendered within six months of the Terms of Reference has been deleted. Now, in the 2026 Rules, the President of the ICC Court will fix the time for rendering the Award pursuant to the factors set in Article 34.

Greater Harmonisation

As we explain above, the 2026 Rules align better with other institutional rules. We include here a short-summary comparison between arbitration rules.

Our Thoughts

Some readers may feel that the ICC could have gone further with its revisions. On balance, the greater harmonisation, the removal of the mandatory status of the Terms of Reference, and the increased focus on procedural timing and efficiency will be well received. The increased role of parties in the disclosure obligations of the arbitrators is a big step, and one that will impact arbitrators. The message from the ICC is clear: speed and efficiency are important. The ICC must be congratulated on the 2026 Rules.

---

^[1] ICC, ‘Unveiling the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Part 2: Moving Beyond Mandatory Terms of Reference’ (15 May 2026), https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/news/unveiling-the-2026-icc-arbitration-rules-part-2-moving-beyond-mandatory-terms-of-reference/ accessed 9 June 2026.

^[2] Ibid.