New rules, new tools: unpacking the ICC 2026 Arbitration Rules

When parties negotiate contracts, the dispute resolution clause is an important part to get right. Get it wrong, and you deal not only with the underlying dispute, but also procedural problems in its resolution.

In advising clients on the options, key factors include confidentiality, flexibility, speed, cost, and enforceability. For most international contracts, arbitration is often chosen as it scores highly across these criteria. However, in recent years, concerns have emerged that the arbitration process can become slow, cumbersome, and costly.

The ICC’s 2026 Arbitration Rules (in force from 1 June 2026) are intended to foster faster, leaner arbitrations with more predictable timelines. These new rules update the ICC’s 2021 Arbitration Rules, and to some extent follow the recent changes to the SIAC rules. This is part of a wider convergence among the major arbitral institutions, with SIAC widely regarded as a forerunner.

A similar trend can be seen in Spain, where the Madrid International Arbitration Center (CIIAM) has incorporated expedited (abbreviated) and ‘highly expedited’ procedures in its rules, aimed at streamlining proceedings and reducing timelines.

At the same time, the new ICC rules aim to preserve the flexibility so valued in the arbitral process. The reforms focus on three themes:

• speed and efficiency;
• procedural simplification;
• transparency and integrity.

This article highlights the key changes and the likely practical impact for future disputes and choice of arbitral forum. For ease of reference, the ICC has (helpfully) produced a comparison table between the 2021 and 2026 rules, which is available here.

Removal of mandatory terms of reference

A recurring concern about ICC arbitral procedure was the mandatory terms of reference, which many found cumbersome, formulaic, and which caused significant and unnecessary costs and delays. The requirement to prepare terms of reference (previously Article 23 of the 2021 rules) has been removed. While tribunals and parties can still choose to use them, it will no longer be obligatory. This means that arbitrations can be initiated more quickly. It also reduces the upfront costs of preparing them. This is expected to be a welcome move.

Enhanced role of the case management conference (CMC)

The initial CMC will now serve as the main method of setting timelines and shaping proceedings (Article 24). The intention behind this revision is to bring more predictability to timelines and costs. This will be of significant value to parties who want to press forward with their claims, and aligns with the greater emphasis on CMCs in the English court and international arbitration generally.

Expansion of expedited arbitration (Article 32) and the new ‘highly expedited’ arbitration (Article 33)

In addition to the existing provision for expedited arbitration, the 2026 rules introduce a new ‘highly expedited’ procedure allowing disputes to be resolved within approximately three months from the CMC. While there is no monetary threshold, all parties must agree (Article 33). Given the requirement for consent, it is likely to be deployed only in genuinely urgent disputes where all parties have the same interest in reaching a speedy resolution.

The highly expedited procedure requires tightly controlled and front-loaded pleadings and will be decided by a sole arbitrator, with discretion to issue an award without reasons (again, subject to all party agreement). It is unlikely there will be many cases that are capable of following this new highly expedited procedure.

The existing expedited arbitration procedure remains, but the automatic threshold has increased to US$4 million, for all arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. This change is likely to result in many more medium-value cases benefitting from streamlined procedures and increased efficiency.

Formal early determination mechanism (Article 30)

The ability to determine weak claims at an early stage in arbitration has historically compared unfavourably to the strike out procedure in court litigation. This changes in the 2026 rules . Claims that are ‘manifestly without merit’ can now be dispensed with early. To take advantage of (or resist) this option, more robust initial pleadings are likely to be required.

Revised time limits for awards (Article 34)

Time limits for undertaking steps in the arbitral process will be linked more closely to procedural timetables and tribunal management. Instead of the default six-month deadline, the tribunal will fix and establish a deadline more directly linked to the procedural timetable set out in Article 24. The hope is that this will lead to greater predictability in the timing of awards and greater efficiency overall. Previously, extensions to the six-month deadline were commonplace, meaning cases would significantly overrun.

Enhanced disclosure requirements

Alongside the revisions introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025 in the UK (and elsewhere), the 2026 rules introduce stronger obligations (for both arbitrators and parties) to disclose information that could give rise to conflict. In particular, parties will now be required to submit details of individuals and entities for prospective arbitrators, in order to evaluate for conflict prior to accepting an appointment (Article 12(5)). Parties will also be required to disclose information on third party funding (Article 12(6)).

Updated emergency arbitrator provisions (Article 31)

The recognition of preliminary orders has been strengthened to reflect current practice. Emergency proceedings can now commence even if jurisdiction is disputed, provided it can be shown that the arbitration agreement ‘may exist’. This will make it easier for parties to seek urgent interim relief, even where there is a potential dispute over the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

Practical and procedural modernisations

Electronic communication will now be the default for communicating with the ICC’s Secretariat (Article 3). While not mandatory, virtual hearings are fully embedded in the process and available for CMCs, hearings, and for the tribunal’s deliberations.

Additionally, the 2026 rules codify the role of tribunal secretaries (Article 44). While decision-making authority remains with the arbitrator, tribunal secretaries are now formally recognised as assisting the tribunal and will be required to meet the same standards of confidentiality and impartiality.

There is no explicit reference to the use of AI in the 2026 rules, but the emphasis on transparency and the non-delegation of decision-making provides a clear framework for parties and arbitrators alike. Overall, these modernisations are expected to lead to more decisive case strategy, with a greater emphasis on efficiency and cost control.

Conclusion

The 2026 ICC Rules reinforce a shift toward faster, more transparent, and more actively managed arbitration. Clients and lawyers will need to adapt by focusing on early case preparation, procedural efficiency, and strategic use of the new tools now available.  Overall, it seems likely that these new rules will be welcomed by most parties and will help improve arbitrations.