1. General rationale and temporal scope
I – On 1 June 2026, the new ICC Rules of Arbitration entered into force. The revision is primarily aimed at increasing efficiency in arbitral proceedings.
II – The new Rules apply to arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2026, unless the parties have agreed to submit to the Rules in effect on an earlier date (Article 1(2)).
2. Communications and initial submissions
I – Article 3 establishes the general rule that written communications with the Secretariat are to be made electronically, dispensing, in principle, with the need to submit hard copies. Strictly speaking, this reflects a practice that had already become standard, thereby eliminating a residual source of unnecessary formalism.
II – The new Rules also further specify the content of the initial submissions.
The Request for Arbitration must identify the relevant agreements, in particular the applicable arbitration agreement or agreements, and, where claims are made under more than one arbitration agreement, indicate the arbitration agreement under which each claim is made (Article 5(3)(e) and (f)). A parallel rule applies to counterclaims (Article 6(4)(c) and (d)). In addition, the claimant and the respondent must provide, respectively with the Request and with the Answer, the information required by Article 12(5) and (6), including the identification of the relevant persons and entities for the purposes of the arbitrators’ disclosure obligations (Article 5(3), final paragraph, and Article 6(1), final paragraph).
This reflects a heightened requirement of information and substantiation at the commencement of the case.
III – Article 4 introduces a relevant rule of flexibility: the parties may modify any time limits provided by the Rules, but, after the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, such modification becomes effective only with the tribunal’s approval (Article 4(2)).
The Court also retains the power to extend time limits when necessary to fulfil its responsibilities, as well as those of the arbitral tribunal (Article 4(3)).
3. Terms of Reference, case management conference and new claims
I – The new Rules abandon the mandatory nature of the Terms of Reference, which is a significant change. In many cases, the Terms of Reference repeated what was already apparent from the submissions and introduced a procedural step of limited practical value; this approach is therefore consistent with the streamlining objective underlying the reform.
Nothing prevents the tribunal and the parties, however, from adopting an equivalent document in complex cases, where this is useful to stabilise the subject matter of the dispute, the relevant arbitration agreements or the procedural timetable.
II – In this respect, the procedural focus shifts to the Case Management Conference (CMC).
The tribunal must hold the CMC within 30 days of receiving the file (Article 24(1)), unless the Secretary General extends that period upon a reasoned request, and must then establish the procedural timetable, which is communicated to the Secretariat and the parties without requiring prior approval by the Court.
After the conference, no party may make new claims without the authorisation of the tribunal (Article 25), which must in such cases consider the nature of the claim, the stage of the arbitration, the costs and other relevant circumstances.
In addition, the Rules no longer contain a list of case management techniques, referring the matter instead to guidance from the Secretariat (Article 23(2)). This gives case management greater flexibility, allowing practices to be updated without the need formally to amend the Rules.
4. Independence, third-party funding and confidentiality
I – The new Article 12 seeks to reinforce confidence in the arbitral process by enshrining the arbitrators’ duties of independence and impartiality (Article 12(1)), their initial and continuing disclosure obligations (Article 12(2) and (3)), and the parties’ corresponding duties to identify persons and entities relevant to conflict checks (Article 12(5)).
Article 12(2) also makes explicit a rule of in dubio pro revelatione: any doubt on the arbitrator’s part as to whether a circumstance should be disclosed must be resolved in favour of disclosure.
The purpose is to safeguard the legitimacy of the arbitral tribunal: on the one hand, the arbitrator is required to disclose circumstances capable of giving rise to doubts as to his or her independence or impartiality; on the other, the parties are required to provide sufficient information for that control to be effective, in particular by identifying persons and entities relevant to conflict checks.
The Rules further clarify that disclosure does not in itself imply a lack of independence or impartiality (Article 12(4)), thereby encouraging broader disclosures.
The obligation to disclose third-party funders with an economic interest in the outcome of the arbitration, already present in the 2021 Rules, is maintained and adjusted in Article 12(6). The new feature lies above all in its relationship with the parties’ duty to provide, already in the initial submissions, lists of persons and entities relevant to conflict checks.
The amendment is important because disclosure thereby moves from an exercise predominantly undertaken individually by the arbitrator to a cooperative mechanism of procedural transparency, in which arbitrators, parties and the arbitral institution must contribute to the prevention of conflicts.
II – Article 14(2) further strengthens the scope for institutional control by allowing the Secretary General to submit the decision on confirmation of an arbitrator to the Court where the Secretary General considers it appropriate, even in the absence of any objection by the parties.
The Rules also establish an express duty of confidentiality for arbitrators, subject to the usual exceptions (Article 12(8)), without introducing a general duty of confidentiality for the parties; that remains dependent on an order by the tribunal upon a party’s request (Article 23(3)).
5. Truncated tribunal, early determination and hearings
I – If, after the last hearing or the submission of the last substantive written submission, an arbitrator dies or is removed by the Court, Article 16(5) now allows the Court to decide that the remaining arbitrators shall continue the arbitration.
This is, once again, a rule designed to promote efficiency, requiring consideration of the position of the parties and of the remaining arbitrators, who may not agree to continue.
II – Another significant new feature is the introduction, in Article 30, of early determination: any party may request an early determination of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The tribunal decides, at its discretion, whether to admit the application.
The new feature lies not so much in the idea of the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims, already well known in arbitral practice, but in its express inclusion in the text of the Rules.
The mechanism serves to remove from the arbitration, as early as possible, claims or defences that do not justify the cost of a full hearing.
III – The Rules also now allow remote or hybrid means in three distinct contexts: in the deliberations of the arbitral tribunal (Article 19(3)), in case management conferences, the form of which is determined by the tribunal in the absence of party agreement (Article 24(5)), and in hearings, after consultation with the parties and having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case (Article 27(1)).
6. Emergency arbitration
I – The Emergency Arbitrator Provisions, moved to Appendix IV, become more effective in disputes involving highly complex contractual structures.
The Application for Emergency Measures may be submitted before, at the same time as, or after the Request for Arbitration, provided that it is received by the Secretariat before the transmission of the file to the arbitral tribunal, where a party requires interim or conservatory measures that cannot await the constitution of the arbitral tribunal (Article 31; Appendix IV, Article 1(1) and (4)).
The application may be directed against signatories to the arbitration agreement, their successors, or parties in respect of which the President considers, on the basis of the information contained in the application, that a binding arbitration agreement may exist (Appendix IV, Article 1(2) and (7)), without prejudice to the arbitral tribunal’s final decision as to jurisdiction and to its power to modify, terminate or annul the emergency arbitrator’s order (Appendix IV, Article 6(10)).
II – The new Rules also expressly recognise preliminary orders, designed to prevent a party from frustrating the purpose of emergency relief, and allow prior notification of the other parties to be dispensed with where justified (Appendix IV, Article 7(1) and (2)).
The decision must, however, then be communicated to the other parties and followed by an opportunity to be heard, and the emergency arbitrator may modify the preliminary order after hearing the affected parties (Appendix IV, Article 7(3) and (4)).
The rule addresses cases in which prior notice would defeat the usefulness of the relief, without, however, wholly neutralising the right to be heard.
III – The emergency arbitration regime preserves the emphasis on expedition, with the appointment of the emergency arbitrator normally within two days (Appendix IV, Article 2(1)), the swift establishment of the procedural timetable, also normally within two days after the emergency arbitrator receives the file (Appendix IV, Article 5(1)), and the issuance of the order within a maximum of 15 days, unless extended by the President (Appendix IV, Article 6(4)).
The emergency arbitrator may also hold meetings in person, in hybrid format, by videoconference, telephone conference or other electronic means (Appendix IV, Article 4(2)).
IV – The procedure is not applicable if the arbitration agreement was concluded before 1 January 2012, if the parties have opted out of its application, or if the arbitration agreement arises from a treaty or from an investment protection law (Appendix IV, Article 1(3)).
This last point broadens the scope of exclusion in 2026, since it now expressly covers agreements arising from investment protection law, thereby avoiding overlap with mechanisms specific to investment arbitration.
7. Expedited and highly expedited procedures
I – Under the new Rules, the threshold for the automatic application of the Expedited Procedure Provisions rises to USD 4,000,000 for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026.
This threshold applies only to agreements concluded after that date; the previous thresholds remain in force: USD 3,000,000 for agreements concluded between 1 January 2021 and 31 May 2026, and USD 2,000,000 for agreements concluded between 1 March 2017 and 31 December 2020.
The model retains its essential features: a sole arbitrator, short time limits, the possibility of limiting submissions and the hearing, and the rendering of the award within six months of the initial CMC (Appendix V, Article 4).
II – There is, however, a separate innovation: the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (hereinafter HEAP) (Article 33 and Appendix VI), which apply only by agreement of all parties and are designed to produce a decision within three months.
In such cases, the Request must be accompanied by a Statement of Claim; the sole arbitrator is appointed by agreement of the parties within 20 days of the respondent’s receipt of the Request — failing agreement within that period, the Court proceeds directly to the appointment (Appendix VI, Article 4).
Within the same 20-day period from receipt of the Request and Statement of Claim, the respondent must submit, among other things, its comments or proposals concerning the appointment of the sole arbitrator, the place of the arbitration, the applicable rules of law, the language of the arbitration, and the information relevant for the purposes of Article 12(5) and (6) (Appendix VI, Article 2(4)).
The respondent submits its Answer and Statement of Defence within 30 days. If a Statement of Counterclaim is submitted, the claimant must submit its Reply to Counterclaim within 20 days from receipt of the Statement of Counterclaim from the Secretariat, or within such other time as the arbitral tribunal may determine if already confirmed or appointed. These time limits are not subject to extension, unless the parties agree otherwise.
III – Joinder of additional parties and consolidation of arbitrations are also excluded (Appendix VI, Article 3(1) and (2)).
The initial case management conference must take place within seven days from the date on which the file is transmitted to the arbitral tribunal, unless extended by the Secretary General, in order to consult the parties on procedural measures and establish the procedural timetable (Appendix VI, Article 6(1)). The award is rendered within three months of that conference — a period that includes the Court’s scrutiny of the draft award, making it particularly demanding — unless the President extends the time limit pursuant to a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal or on the President’s own initiative, if the President considers an extension necessary.
The parties may also agree to an award without reasons, a possibility that should be used with caution given the risk of refusal of recognition in jurisdictions that require reasons as a condition of enforceability.
8. Award, correction, additional award, costs and tribunal secretary
I – As regards the rendering of the award, Article 34 removes the default six-month time limit counted from the Terms of Reference. The time limit for the final award is now fixed or extended by the President, taking into account the procedural timetable.
The Court’s scrutiny of draft awards remains significant. The Court must consider, to the extent possible, the requirements of validity, enforceability and the mandatory requirements of the place of arbitration.
II – Article 38 permits electronic signature and signature in counterparts, that is, in separate copies; Article 39(1) extends to 45 days the period within which the tribunal may, on its own initiative and after requesting the parties’ comments, correct clerical, computational or typographical errors, or any errors of a similar nature, in the award; the time limit for a party’s request for correction remains 30 days (Article 39(2)).
Article 39 also now provides for a request for an additional award in respect of omitted decisions. The extension of the ex officio correction period may create some tension in seats with shorter national time limits for challenges. If the tribunal corrects the award close to the 45-day limit, the parties should verify whether their rights of challenge at national level remain intact.
Article 40 transfers the fixing of the advance on costs to the Secretary General; the Court retains competence to fix the arbitrators’ fees and ICC administrative expenses, taking into account, as regards the fees, the diligence and efficiency of the tribunal, the time spent, the complexity of the dispute, the quality of the draft award and the timeliness of its submission.
The Schedule of Fees is formally integrated into the Rules and separately sets out the scales of arbitrators’ fees and ICC administrative expenses, including those applicable to the expedited procedure and to the highly expedited procedure, with application to arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2026.
III – Article 43 introduces another significant new feature: upon the request of any party, the Court will communicate the reasons for its decisions.
The provision specifically covers decisions under Articles 7(2) (extension of the arbitration agreement), 11 (consolidation of arbitrations), 13(9) and (10) (constitution of the tribunal in specific situations), 15 (replacement of arbitrators) and 16(3) (Court-initiated replacement of an arbitrator).
The request must be made before the decision is issued; for decisions under Article 16(3), the parties must make the request when invited to comment. The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, refuse to communicate the reasons.
This reinforces institutional transparency and may have a real impact on the binding force of the Court’s decisions before state courts, in particular in challenge or annulment proceedings.
IV – Article 44 governs the role of the tribunal secretary. In essence, the tribunal secretary must be appointed after consultation with the parties and act under the direction of the tribunal; delegation of decision-making authority is prohibited, and requirements of independence, impartiality and confidentiality similar to those applicable to arbitrators apply.
Article 7 of Appendix III allows only the reimbursement of the tribunal secretary’s reasonable and justified expenses and prohibits direct arrangements between the arbitral tribunal and the parties regarding the secretary’s fees. This confirms that the tribunal secretary may not function as a de facto fourth arbitrator remunerated outside the institutional framework.
9. Conclusion
The 2026 Rules have not recast or structurally reformed the ICC system. They are, as we have seen, an amendment chiefly aimed at streamlining and updating the regime.
The success of the new Rules will, as always, be determined by practice.
