The New ICC Arbitration Rules 2026: The main amendments for increased efficiency and clarity

On 22 May 2026, the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) published its revised Arbitration Rules, scheduled to enter into force on 1 June 2026 (“2026 Rules”). The revised set of rules shall replace the ICC Arbitration Rules 2021, which is currently in force. The 2026 amendments demonstrate a continued effort to respond to practical developments in global dispute resolution and are the result of long and carefully considered deliberations of ICC.

The revisions are driven by several recurring themes in arbitration practice: efficiency, procedural predictability, digitalisation, transparency, and case management flexibility. Many of the changes also reflect issues that practitioners and users have debated extensively in recent years, including the scope of disclosure obligations, the increasing use of expedited proceedings, and the balance between procedural autonomy and institutional oversight.

This article highlights the main amendments that are likely to have the greatest practical impact on ICC arbitration proceedings.

1. Removal of Mandatory Terms of Reference: Enhancing Procedural Flexibility and Efficiency

Perhaps the most structurally significant amendment is the removal of the mandatory Terms of Reference (“ToR”).

Under the 2021 ICC framework, the ToR serve as a foundational procedural document defining the parties, claims, relief sought, and issues to be determined by the tribunal. Historically, the ToR has also been viewed as one of the defining characteristics of ICC arbitration.

The 2026 Rules, however, move away from mandatory use of the ToR in all cases. The change reflects increasing criticism that the drafting and negotiation of ToR can consume substantial time and costs without always providing real procedural value.

In practice, many tribunals and counsel already treat the Request for Arbitration, the Answer, procedural orders, and case management conferences as sufficient tools to define the dispute. The ICC appears to have recognised that, particularly in complex and fast-moving disputes, the mandatory preparation of a separate ToR may unnecessarily delay proceedings.

The amendment may also reduce strategic procedural manoeuvring. One recurring issue under the previous regime was that jurisdictional objections were often left unresolved at the ToR stage, while parties simultaneously attempted to shape or limit the procedural scope of the dispute through negotiations over the wording of the document.

Importantly, the removal of mandatory ToR does not eliminate procedural safeguards. Tribunals will still retain broad authority to organise proceedings and define the issues in dispute through procedural orders and case management techniques. Therefore, arbitral tribunals may even establish ToR when they consider them a useful tool for the management of individual cases.

The reform reflects a broader institutional trend toward procedural flexibility and efficiency.

2. Disclosure and Transparency Reforms: Greater Clarity Without Radical Change

The revised 2026 Rules also address disclosure standards and transparency obligations. The ICC has historically maintained comparatively high disclosure standards. The 2026 amendments do not introduce a radical substantive shift. Instead, the revisions seek to clarify expectations and strengthen procedural consistency.

A notable feature of the revised framework is the continued emphasis that doubts concerning potentially relevant disclosure issues should generally be resolved in favour of transparency. In practice, this approach is likely to encourage broader and earlier disclosure by arbitrators and parties alike, thereby reducing the risk of later challenges to arbitrator independence or impartiality.

In addition and to support (prospective) arbitrators in fulfilling their disclosure obligations, in Article 12 paragraph 5, the 2026 Rules require parties, at the outset of the arbitration, to submit a list of relevant entities and individuals connected to the dispute along with an explanation of why these entities and individuals should be considered by (prospective) arbitrators. This will be of particular relevance for growing number of cases involving third-party funding. The purpose of this requirement is to enable arbitrators and the ICC Secretariat to assess potential conflicts of interest more effectively and at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

Importantly, the 2026 Rules also clarify, in Article 12 paragraph 4, that disclosure, in itself, does not imply a lack of independence or impartiality. Rather, disclosure is framed as a procedural safeguard designed to enhance transparency and preserve confidence in the arbitral process.

3. Confidentiality: Maintaining Flexibility in a Sensitive Area

Confidentiality remains one of the most debated and commercially significant aspects of international arbitration and as such is often cited as the second most important reason, why parties choose arbitration, after the enforceability of awards. Given the differing legal traditions and cultural approaches across jurisdictions, the ICC has historically avoided imposing an overly rigid or uniform confidentiality regime.

The 2026 Rules maintain this cautious approach and provide even more flexibility. Rather than introducing sweeping new confidentiality obligations, the revisions aim at clarifying the existing framework and preserving the parties’ ability to tailor confidentiality protections to the specific needs of the dispute.

In particular, the revised Rules further recognise that confidentiality obligations may be addressed separately by the parties, the tribunal, and the ICC Secretariat. This reflects the practical reality that confidentiality concerns vary significantly depending on the industry sector, regulatory environment, and commercial sensitivity of the information involved.

Against this background, the ICC deliberately refrained from fundamentally redesigning its confidentiality provisions, despite extensive debate on the topic during the drafting process. This reflects a conscious policy choice: sophisticated users of international arbitration are generally capable of negotiating dispute-specific confidentiality arrangements without the need for excessively prescriptive institutional rules. The 2026 Rules, in Article 12 paragraph 8, merely clarify, in broad terms, that Arbitrators are to keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration unless otherwise in the public domain, agreed by the parties, required by applicable law, or necessary to protect a legal right or comply with disclosure obligations. The ICC Court’s and the Secretariat’s confidentiality obligations (Appendix I, Article 2 of the Rules) remain unchanged.

By contrast, other major arbitral institutions, like the LCIA and the DIS, adopt more rigid approach. Notably, Article 30 of the LCIA Rules and Article 44 of the DIS rules adopt expansive default confidentiality regimes coupled with structured obligations. The DIS adopts a broad and explicit approach, extending to all participants and all aspects of the proceedings, whereas the LCIA articulates a general principle of confidentiality supported by specific procedural safeguards.

In this context, the ICC stands apart by reacting to user feedback and treating confidentiality not as an inherent feature of arbitration, but as a matter to be shaped primarily by party agreement. In particular, in-house counsel often prefer to draft confidentiality agreements independently themselves, as standard boilerplate provisions frequently fail to address organisation-specific considerations. The revised framework prioritises procedural flexibility over rigid standardisation, while still preserving confidentiality as a core feature of ICC arbitration.

4. Expanded and More Predictable Expedited Arbitration: Enhancing Speed and Flexibility in ICC Proceedings

The 2026 Rules continue the institution’s strong emphasis on procedural efficiency by further expanding and refining the expedited arbitration framework, which is regulated in detail in Appendix V of the Rules.

One of the most significant amendments is the increase of the monetary threshold for the automatic application of the Expedited Procedure from USD 3 million to USD 4 million applying to arbitration agreements entered into after 1 June 2026 (Article 1 paragraph 3 of the Appendix V of the Rules). The increase in the expedited procedure threshold significantly expands the range of disputes that may be resolved under streamlined procedural rules and acknowledges the rising value of internation commercial disputes. The amendment reflects evolving user expectations that even commercially significant disputes should be capable of being resolved within shorter timelines and at lower cost.

Additionally and because party feedback has shown, that even the six-month timeframe of Expedited Procedure for the final award from the date of the initial Case Management Conference can sometimes be too long for the parties, the revised framework further introduces an even more ambitious step toward procedural acceleration: the so-called “Highly Expedited Arbitration”, which is regulated in Appendix VI of the 2026 Rules. The Highly Expedited Arbitration will allow for disputes to be resolved on the basis of written submissions, without a hearing, while the parties may also agree that the final award will contain no reasons. In accordance with Article 33 of the 2026 Rules, the Highly Expedited Arbitration is optional (opt-in only) and not subject to a mandatory tiered structure based on case size (small, medium, or large cases). Notably, there is no provision for joinder or similar procedural mechanisms. Under this framework, the award must be issued within three months of the initial Case Management Conference. As this is effectively a pilot project, its uptake and effectiveness remain to be seen in practice.

The practical significance of this development should not be underestimated. Traditionally, international arbitration has often been criticised for gradually resembling large-scale commercial litigation in terms of duration, procedural complexity, and cost. By introducing a distinct “Highly Expedited” framework, the ICC is effectively responding to increasing market pressure for dispute resolution mechanisms capable of delivering enforceable decisions within commercially realistic timeframes.

At the same time, the broader use of expedited mechanisms will inevitably continue to raise questions concerning due process and procedural fairness, particularly in disputes involving complex factual records, multiple parties, or technically demanding issues. The success of the revised framework will therefore depend largely on tribunals’ ability to balance procedural economy with the parties’ right to present their case fully and effectively. It remains to be seen in practice whether this interesting “experiment” can work.

5. Emergency Arbitrator: Strengthening Early Interim Relief and Procedural Clarity

Another important development concerns the Emergency Arbitrator Provisions regulated in Appendix IV of the Rules.

The revised 2026 Rules further clarify and strengthen the effectiveness of the Emergency Arbitrator framework, particularly regarding the availability of preliminary procedural measures before the constitution of the tribunal.

The rules now make explicit that an Emergency Arbitrator may, at any stage of the proceedings, order a party not to engage in conduct that could disrupt or undermine the arbitration. Such measures may even be granted on an ex-parte basis in the form of preliminary orders, provided that the affected party is immediately given an opportunity to be heard. As an additional procedural safeguard, the Emergency Arbitrator is expressly empowered to modify or revoke such a preliminary measure considering subsequent submissions. This allows arbitrators to quickly and effectively react to often-times rapidly evolving circumstances, while providing sensible procedural safeguards for the parties.

Emergency arbitration has become a central feature of modern institutional arbitration. Parties increasingly require urgent interim relief in areas such as asset preservation, contractual performance disputes, shareholder conflicts, and supply chain disruptions.

One particularly significant aspect is the emphasis on speed and procedural organisation. Preliminary procedural decisions may now be issued at a very early stage of proceedings, helping parties secure interim protection before irreparable harm occurs.

6. Digitalisation and Electronic Communications by Default: Enhancing Efficiency and Accessibility in ICC Proceedings

The 2026 Rules continue the ICC’s shift toward fully digital proceedings.

Pursuant to Article 3 of the 2026 Rules, electronic communication becomes the default method for procedural correspondence and submissions unless a party objects or exceptional circumstances require otherwise.

This reform reflects practical realities that became particularly visible during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote hearings, digital filings, and virtual case management conferences are now standard features of international arbitration practice.

The revised 2026 Rules therefore institutionalise procedural approaches that had already become widespread in practice.

The move toward digital-first proceedings offers several advantages. To name a few: reduced administrative burden, faster procedural communication, lower document production costs, greater accessibility for cross-border participants and improved procedural efficiency.

At the same time, digitalisation raises new questions regarding cybersecurity, confidentiality, data protection, and unequal access to technological infrastructure.

Conclusion

The 2026 Rules 2026 represent a meaningful evolution of one of the world’s leading arbitration frameworks. The amendments discussed above collectively reveal the ICC’s broader strategic priorities. The tendency is to make the arbitration faster, more predictable, more cost-efficient, technologically integrated and more responsive to current commercial realities and stakeholder feedback.

Importantly, the reforms do not attempt to fundamentally reinvent ICC arbitration. Instead, they modernise existing procedural tools while preserving the flexibility and party autonomy that remain central to international arbitration.

For practitioners and users alike, the 2026 Rules will likely influence not only procedural strategy but also drafting practices, case management expectations, and institutional competition within the broader arbitration market.

As international disputes continue to grow in complexity and commercial urgency, the ICC’s latest revisions demonstrate a clear effort to ensure that institutional arbitration remains both effective and commercially relevant in the years ahead.