The International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC”) has now released the newest iteration of its arbitration rules, the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules (the “2026 Rules”), which will enter into force on 1 June 2026.
The 2026 Rules are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The ICC has not fundamentally altered the structure of ICC arbitration, but it has introduced a series of targeted reforms designed to address recurring criticisms of international arbitration relating to cost, duration, procedural complexity and procedural flexibility.
Many of the amendments reflect developments that had already emerged in arbitral practice over recent years, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing use of expedited and digitally managed proceedings. Other reforms, however, represent genuinely significant innovations, most notably the introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”), the removal of the mandatory Terms of Reference and the codification of early determination powers.
Taken together, the 2026 Rules demonstrate a clear institutional emphasis on:
- speed and procedural efficiency;
- active case management;
- digitalisation and procedural flexibility;
- enhanced transparency and conflict management; and
- preserving the enforceability and legitimacy of arbitral awards in increasingly complex and funded disputes.
The most significant practical changes introduced by the 2026 Rules include:
- The introduction of Highly Expedited Arbitration;
- The shift away from mandatory Terms of Reference;
- Express early determination powers;
- Expanded disclosure and conflict management obligations;
- A new express confidentiality duty for arbitrators;
- Expanded digitalisation and virtual procedure provisions;
- A new regulatory framework governing tribunal secretaries; and
- Several additional procedural and administrative amendments.
This note explores each of these developments in turn.
1. Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedures
The introduction of HEAP marks one of the most ambitious innovations in the 2026 ICC Rules.
Pursuant to Article 33 of the 2026 Rules, unlike the Expedited Procedure Provisions, which may apply automatically to disputes below a specified threshold, the applicability of the HEAP is entirely dependent on the parties’ agreement:
When all parties so agree, the arbitration shall be conducted as a Highly Expedited Arbitration in accordance with the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions in Appendix VI.[1]
While the goal of expedited arbitration is streamlined arbitration, the new HEAP seeks to provide access to ultra-fast arbitration. The HEAP is therefore not merely a revised expedited procedure, but an entirely new procedural model.
This objective is reflected in Appendix VI, which establishes the following procedural deadlines for the HEAP:
- The arbitration begins with the claimant’s submission of the Request and Statement of Claim (Appendix VI, Article 2(1));
- Within 20 days from receipt of the Request and Statement of Claim from the Secretariat, the respondent must submit the following (Appendix VI, Article 2(4)):
- its full name, description, address and other contact details;
- the full name, address and other contact details of any person(s) representing the respondent in the arbitration;
- any observations or proposals concerning the appointment of the sole arbitrator, if the parties are unable to jointly nominate the sole arbitrator;
- any observations or proposals as to the place of the arbitration, the applicable rules of law and the language of the arbitration; and
- the information required by Articles 12(5)-12(6) of the 2026 Rules
- Within 20 days from the respondent’s receipt of the Request and Statement of Claim, or a longer period if agreed by the parties, the parties must jointly nominate the sole arbitrator, or the ICC Court will directly appoint the sole arbitrator (Appendix VI, Article 4);
- Challenges to the arbitrator must be submitted within 7 days from the receipt of the notification of the appointment or confirmation of the arbitrator by the challenging party or from the date when the party was informed of the facts and circumstances on which the challenge is based (Appendix VI, Article 5);
- Within 7 days from receiving the file from the Secretariat, the sole arbitrator must hold a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) (Appendix VI, Article 6);
- Within 30 days from receipt of the Request and Statement of Claim from the Secretariat, the respondent must submit its Answer and Statement of Defence and Statement of Counterclaim (Appendix VI, Article 2(5));
- If a Statement of Counterclaim has been submitted by the respondent, the claimant must submit its Reply to Counterclaim within 20 days from receipt of the Statement of Counterclaim from the Secretariat (Appendix VI, Article 2(7)).
Of these deadlines, those listed in Article 2 of Appendix VI are to be strictly enforced unless agreed by the parties, pursuant to Article 2(9) of Appendix VI:
No extensions of the time limits in Article 2 of this Appendix shall be granted unless agreed by the parties.[2]
Article 7 of Appendix VI regulates HEAP awards, providing that they must be rendered within three months from the date of the initial case management conference, unless the President of the ICC Court extends the time limit:
The arbitral tribunal must render its final award within three months from the date of the initial CMC, 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.[3]
The HEAP thus places significant emphasis on speed, procedural economy and front-loaded case management. It empowers tribunals to limit written submissions, curtail document production, dispense with hearings and, where agreed by the parties, even issue unreasoned awards.[4] In doing so, the ICC appears to be responding to growing commercial demand for rapid and cost-efficient adjudication of straightforward disputes, while positioning itself competitively alongside faster forms of dispute resolution such as adjudication and emergency merits determination.
Practitioners have welcomed the introduction of HEAP as a “major innovation” and “a meaningful response to the oft-heard criticism that arbitration is too long and expensive.”[5] However, they have also noted that only time will tell whether and how quickly parties will adopt this new mechanism as “[m]uch will depend on whether the HEAP proves capable of delivering faster and more effective proceedings without compromising the quality of the decisions.”[6]
2. Shift Away from the Terms of Reference as Procedural Anchor
One of the most significant structural changes introduced by the 2026 ICC Rules is the shift away from the Terms of Reference (“ToR”) as the procedural centrepiece of ICC arbitration. Historically, the ToR were one of the defining characteristics of ICC arbitration and served as a formal document recording the parties, claims, relief sought and the tribunal’s mandate.
Under the 2021 Rules, Article 23 required tribunals to establish Terms of Reference shortly after the file was transmitted to the tribunal, and numerous procedural milestones were tied to their preparation or approval.
However, as recognised by many arbitration practitioners, the ToR “has long been a source of controversy, as especially in proceedings with non-participating or obstructing parties, the requirement to sign Terms of Reference has often led to delays.”[7]
The 2026 Rules fundamentally alter this approach by removing the mandatory requirement for Terms of Reference altogether. Instead, the 2026 Rules place greater emphasis on the initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”) and the procedural timetable established at the outset of the proceedings. Article 24(1) now makes the initial CMC the first mandatory procedural milestone after transmission of the file to the arbitral tribunal:
Within 30 days from receiving the file from the Secretariat, the arbitral tribunal shall hold an initial CMC to consult the parties on procedural measures that may be adopted pursuant to Article 23(2).[8]
This reflects a broader move away from procedural formalism and toward more flexible and pragmatic case management. Rather than requiring parties and tribunals to negotiate and finalise a formal procedural document at an early stage, the 2026 Rules instead encourage disputes to crystallise through the parties’ substantive submissions and the tribunal’s active procedural management during the initial CMC.
Under the 2021 Rules, the ToR effectively operated as a procedural dividing line. Most notably, Article 23(4) provided that, once the ToR had been signed or approved, parties could no longer make new claims outside the scope of the ToR without authorisation from the tribunal. The 2026 Rules replace this mechanism by linking the limitation on new claims to the initial CMC rather than the ToR. Article 25 now states:
After the initial CMC, no party may make new claims, unless authorised by the arbitral tribunal.[9]
This is an important conceptual shift. The procedural anchor of the arbitration is no longer a formal jurisdiction-defining document, but rather the tribunal’s active case management process.
The reform is also consistent with developments under the ICC Expedited Procedure Provisions, where arbitrations already proceeded successfully without a mandatory Terms of Reference.[10] The ICC has reported that, despite more than a thousand expedited arbitrations being conducted without mandatory ToR, very few (fewer than 25) tribunals elected to draft them voluntarily.[11] This experience likely reinforced the view that mandatory ToR were no longer essential to the efficient conduct of ICC arbitrations.
3. Early Determination
Another major substantive change in the 2026 Rules is the introduction of Article 30 on early determination.
Article 30(1) now provides that a party may apply to the tribunal for early determination of one or more claims or defences on the basis that they are either manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction:
Any party may apply to the arbitral tribunal for the early determination of one or more claims or defences on the grounds that: a) such claims or defences are manifestly without merit; or b) such claims or defences are manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.[12]
Article 30(2) then places the fate of such an application at the discretion of the tribunal, allowing the tribunal to adopt the procedural measures it considers appropriate:
The arbitral tribunal shall determine in its discretion whether to allow the application to proceed. If the arbitral tribunal allows the application to proceed, it shall adopt the procedural measures it considers appropriate, after consulting the parties.[13]
Before the 2026 Rules, ICC tribunals generally relied on implied procedural powers to summarily dismiss manifestly unmeritorious claims or defences. The introduction of Article 30 now provides an express textual basis for early determination, thereby bringing ICC arbitration closer both to summary judgment concepts in domestic litigation and to the early dismissal mechanisms already found in institutional rules such as those of the SIAC and HKIAC.[14]
According to the ICC, “[t]his inclusion in the 2026 Rules further demonstrates the variety of tools and procedures which can be employed in the framework of ICC Arbitration to effectively resolve disputes.”[15]
The codification of this power is likely to increase procedural efficiency and encourage greater use of tactical applications aimed at narrowing disputes at an early stage.[16] At the same time, it will inevitably generate renewed debate regarding the balance between efficiency and due process, particularly in light of parties’ expectations of a full opportunity to present their case.
4. Enhanced Disclosure Obligations and Conflict Management
The 2026 ICC Rules significantly expand and systematise disclosure obligations, particularly in relation to arbitrator independence, conflicts management and transparency concerning third-party interests. While the 2021 Rules already imposed disclosure duties on arbitrators and parties, the 2026 revisions reflect the ICC’s growing concern with increasingly complex corporate structures, repeat appointments and the rise of third-party funding in international arbitration.
A. Expanded Arbitrator Disclosure Obligations
The starting point remains the arbitrator’s duty of independence and impartiality. Article 12(2) strengthens the standard for disclosures by expressly providing that where there is a doubt as to whether a disclosure should be made, the disclosure should be made:
Any doubts the prospective arbitrator may have about whether to make a disclosure shall be resolved in favour of disclosure.[17]
This language is important because it effectively lowers the threshold for disclosure. Rather than allowing prospective arbitrators to exercise broad discretion in determining what may be relevant, the 2026 Rules now encourage over-disclosure wherever uncertainty exists. This aligns with broader trends in international arbitration toward maximum transparency in conflict management.
However, Article 12(4) also codifies the ICC’s longstanding practice that a disclosure by itself does not establish a lack of independence or impartiality:
A disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality.[18]
According to the ICC, Articles 12(2) and 12(4), which were set out, until now, in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration, “have been introduced to encourage prompt and full disclosure. By elevating these principles to the level of the Rules themselves, the 2026 revision seeks to clarify the understanding around disclosures, while also providing reassurance to prospective arbitrators that disclosure, in and of itself, should not be understood as an admission of conflict.”[19]
B. Party Disclosure Obligations
The 2026 Rules also introduce an important new obligation on parties themselves. Article 12(5) provides:
To assist prospective arbitrators and arbitrators in complying with their disclosure obligations, at the time of filing their respective Request, Answer, Request for Joinder, Answer to a Request for Joinder or request for an extension of time for submitting an Answer under Article 6(2), each party must submit to the Secretariat a list of persons and entities which they believe the prospective arbitrators and arbitrators should consider and the reasons thereof. [20]
This is a significant innovation. Previously, conflict identification depended largely on arbitrators’ own disclosures and institutional checks. Under the 2026 Rules, parties now bear an affirmative obligation to identify entities and individuals relevant to potential conflicts.
In practice, this obligation is likely to encompass:
- parent companies;
- subsidiaries;
- ultimate beneficial owners;
- insurers;
- private equity sponsors;
- affiliates;
- funders;
- significant witnesses or experts; and
- entities with a substantial economic interest in the dispute.
The provision reflects the reality that modern commercial disputes often involve highly complex corporate and financial structures that may not be immediately apparent from the parties formally named in the arbitration.
C. Third-Party Funding Disclosure
The 2026 Rules maintain the 2021 Rules’ third-party funding disclosure obligations.
Article 12(6), which mirrors Article 11(7) of the 2021 Rules, provides:
Each party must promptly inform the Secretariat, the arbitral tribunal and the other parties, of the existence and identity of any non-party that has entered into an arrangement for the funding of claims or defences and under which it has an economic interest in the outcome of the arbitration.[21]
* * *
Collectively, these disclosure obligations, including the new party-list obligation and the continued third-party funding disclosure requirement, demonstrate the ICC’s broader policy direction toward greater procedural transparency and more proactive conflicts management. They also place greater responsibility on both parties and arbitrators to identify potential issues at an early stage of the proceedings.
At the same time, the expanded disclosure framework may create new practical and strategic questions. Parties may increasingly debate questions such as how extensive disclosure lists must be or whether omissions justify challenges. The new provisions, therefore, seek to strike a careful balance between transparency, procedural integrity and efficiency in an increasingly complex arbitral landscape.
5. Confidentiality Duty for Arbitrators
The 2026 Rules also introduce an express confidentiality obligation for arbitrators themselves. Article 12(8) states:
Arbitrators shall 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.[22]
This provision is notable because prior ICC Rules did not expressly impose a comprehensive confidentiality obligation on arbitrators. The codification of this duty reflects increasing sensitivity to commercially sensitive information, data protection concerns, reputational risks, parallel proceedings, and disclosure obligations in regulated sectors.
6. Expanded Digitalisation and Virtual Procedure Provisions
The 2026 ICC Rules continue and deepen the ICC’s broader move toward fully digital arbitration. While the 2021 Rules already modernised the framework in response to the COVID-19 pandemic by recognising electronic communications and virtual hearings, the 2026 Rules go further by treating digital procedure not as an exceptional accommodation, but as an ordinary and integrated feature of ICC arbitration.
A. Electronic Communications
One of the clearest examples is found in Articles 3(1) and 3(2), which now provide:
Article 3(1)
Except as provided in Article 3(2), written communications with the Secretariat shall be made by email or other means of electronic communication that creates a record of the sending thereof.[23]
Article 3(2)
Parties shall submit hard copies of the Request, Answer and any Request for Joinder to the Secretariat only when the party filing such submission requests transmission against receipt, registered post or courier or if electronic transmission is not practicable.[24]
These provisions confirm the ICC’s continued abandonment of paper-based procedure as the default model. Communications, submissions and procedural correspondence are now expected to occur electronically unless circumstances require otherwise.
B. Virtual and Hybrid Hearings
The 2026 Rules also further institutionalise remote and hybrid hearings. Article 27(1) now expressly recognises:
The arbitral tribunal may decide […] that any hearing will be conducted in person, in hybrid form or by videoconference, teleconference or other form of electronic communication.[25]
C. Virtual Deliberations
The digitalisation reforms extend beyond hearings themselves. Article 19(3) now expressly permits tribunals to deliberate remotely:
The arbitral tribunal may deliberate wherever it considers appropriate or in hybrid form or by videoconference, teleconference or other form of electronic communication.[26]
This provision codifies a practice that became widespread during the pandemic but had not previously been expressly addressed in the 2021 Rules. It reflects the ICC’s recognition that tribunal deliberations no longer require physical meetings and that remote deliberations can significantly reduce scheduling difficulties and costs in international cases.
D. Electronic Awards
The 2026 Rules also modernise the award process itself. Article 38(1) now provides:
After consulting with the parties and considering all relevant circumstances, the arbitral tribunal may:
a) sign the award electronically;
b) sign the award in counterparts; […].[27]
The express authorisation of electronic signatures is particularly important in international arbitration, where tribunals are often geographically dispersed and the logistics of circulating physical originals can delay finalisation of awards. The provision seeks to facilitate faster issuance of awards while recognising contemporary commercial and technological realities.
* * *
These amendments demonstrate that digitalisation is no longer treated as exceptional but rather as an ordinary feature of modern arbitration practice.
7. New Rules on Tribunal Secretaries
The 2026 ICC Rules introduce, for the first time, an express regulatory framework governing tribunal secretaries.
While tribunal secretaries have long been used in ICC arbitrations,[28] particularly in large and complex disputes, previous ICC Rules did not contain detailed provisions regulating their appointment, role or obligations. The 2026 Rules, therefore, seek to codify existing practice while addressing longstanding concerns regarding transparency and the delegation of functions.
The new provisions are contained in Article 44 of the 2026 Rules. Article 44(1) states:
After consulting with the parties, the arbitral tribunal may appoint a tribunal secretary to work under the arbitral tribunal’s direction and control, without delegating its decision-making authority.[29]
This provision is significant for several reasons. First, it formally recognises the legitimacy of tribunal secretaries within ICC arbitration practice. Second, it expressly confirms that any secretary must operate under the tribunal’s supervision and may not exercise decision-making authority. This language directly addresses concerns that tribunal secretaries may improperly influence the tribunal’s reasoning or effectively function as unofficial additional arbitrators. Third, it requires tribunals to consult parties before appointing a secretary. This reflects a broader emphasis on procedural transparency and party participation.
The 2026 Rules further strengthen safeguards by imposing the same independence, impartiality and confidentiality obligations applicable to arbitrators themselves. Article 44(2) provides:
Tribunal secretaries must satisfy the same independence, impartiality and confidentiality requirements as arbitrators under the Rules and sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence before their appointment.[30]
This is an important development. The requirement also responds to the broader concern that tribunal secretaries, like arbitrators, may have relationships with parties, counsel or arbitrators that should be disclosed. By expressly subjecting secretaries to the same ethical standards as arbitrators, the 2026 Rules seek to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest and reinforce confidence in the integrity of the arbitral process.
Finally, Article 7 of Appendix III regulates the tribunal secretary’s fees and expenses. It provides:
The arbitral tribunal may claim reimbursement of a tribunal secretary’s reasonable and justified expenses. Otherwise, appointing a tribunal secretary shall not create any additional financial burden on the parties. Direct arrangements between the arbitral tribunal and the parties regarding the tribunal secretary’s fees are prohibited.[31]
This rule confirms that tribunal secretaries are not intended to generate separate professional fees payable by the parties. The only recoverable amounts are the secretary’s “reasonable and justified expenses”. The provision therefore prevents tribunals from effectively billing parties for a secretary as though the secretary were a junior arbitrator or additional fee-earner.
The rule also expressly prohibits direct arrangements between the arbitral tribunal and the parties regarding the tribunal secretary’s fees. This appears designed to eliminate concerns that parties may indirectly pay for delegated adjudicative work, or that tribunals may circumvent ICC scrutiny of arbitrator remuneration. It also makes clear that tribunal secretaries are part of the tribunal’s internal support structure, that their use should not materially increase arbitration costs, and that compensation arrangements cannot be privately negotiated with the parties.
The codification of tribunal secretaries reflects the increasing scale and complexity of modern international arbitration. In large commercial disputes involving extensive documentary records, multiple procedural applications and lengthy hearings, tribunal secretaries often play an important practical role in assisting tribunals with case management and procedural efficiency.
The amendments also align the ICC Rules more closely with broader international arbitration practice, where many institutions[32] and soft law instruments, including the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals,[33] have increasingly sought to regulate tribunal secretaries through enhanced disclosure, party consultation and clearer limitations on delegated tasks.
8. Other Additions
A truncated tribunal after the later of the last hearing or last substantive submission (as opposed to after the close of the proceedings) is addressed in Article 16(5):
After the last hearing or the filing of the last substantive submissions, whichever is later, instead of replacing an arbitrator who has died or been removed by the Court pursuant to Articles 16(1) or 16(3), the Court may decide, when it considers it appropriate, that the remaining arbitrators shall continue the arbitration. In making such determination, the Court shall take into account the views of the remaining arbitrators and of the parties and such other matters that it considers appropriate in the circumstances.[34]
A replacement of the (seldom-respected) default six-month time limit from the last signature of the ToR for the final award in Article 34:
The President shall fix the time limit, or subsequently extend the time limit, for rendering the final award, taking into account:
a) the procedural timetable established pursuant to Article 24(2); or
b) a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal.[35]
Extension of the deadline for an arbitral tribunal to submit an award correction on its own initiative from 30 to 45 days under Article 39(1):
On its own initiative, and after seeking the parties’ comments, the arbitral tribunal may correct a clerical, computational or typographical error, or any errors of similar nature contained in an award, provided such correction is submitted in draft form to the Secretariat within 45 days from notification of the award by the Secretariat pursuant to Article 38(2).[36]
Designation of the English version of the 2026 Rules as prevailing in Article 48:
The English version of the Rules is the original text. In the event of any discrepancy or conflict between the English version and a translation, the English version shall prevail.[37]
The possibility to apply Emergency Arbitrator Provisions to any party for which the President is satisfied that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist in Article 1(2) of Appendix IV:
The Emergency Arbitrator Provisions apply only to:
a) parties that are signatories to the arbitration agreement upon which the Application is based;
b) their successors; or
c) any party for which the President is satisfied, based on information in the Application, that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist.[38]
Updated Expedited Procedure Provisions threshold amount from USD 3,000,000 to USD 4,000,000 in Article 1(3) of Appendix V:
The EPP Threshold Amount is:
a) US$ 2,000,000 if the arbitration agreement under the Rules was concluded on or after 1 March 2017 and before 1 January 2021; or
b) US$ 3,000,000 if the arbitration agreement under the Rules was concluded on or after 1 January 2021 and before 1 June 2026; or
c) US$ 4,000,000 if the arbitration agreement under the Rules was concluded on or after 1 June 2026.
However, if an alternative fee scale applies, the EPP Threshold Amount will be the amount set out in the Schedule of Fees.[39]
Conclusion
The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules reflect the ICC’s continuing effort to modernise international arbitration while preserving the procedural legitimacy and enforceability that have historically distinguished ICC proceedings. Although many of the amendments codify practices that had already emerged in response to technological developments and evolving arbitral practice, several reforms, particularly the introduction of HEAP and the express recognition of early determination powers, represent significant substantive developments.
A common theme running throughout the 2026 Rules is the ICC’s attempt to recalibrate the balance between efficiency and due process. The 2026 Rules consistently favour greater procedural flexibility, stronger tribunal case-management powers and accelerated procedures, while simultaneously introducing enhanced safeguards relating to transparency, conflicts management and confidentiality.
The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference, the expansion of digital procedure, the clarification of disclosure obligations and the formal regulation of tribunal secretaries all demonstrate an institutional preference for pragmatism over procedural formalism. At the same time, the ICC has clearly sought to preserve party confidence in the fairness and integrity of the arbitral process through strengthened disclosure obligations, confidentiality protections and clearer procedural frameworks.
Whether the reforms ultimately succeed will depend less on the text of the 2026 Rules themselves than on how tribunals, parties and counsel choose to use the procedural tools now available to them. Nevertheless, the 2026 Rules confirm that the ICC intends to remain at the forefront of efforts to make international arbitration faster, more flexible and more responsive to the realities of contemporary cross-border disputes.
[1] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 33.
[2] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Appendix VI, Article 2(9).
[3] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Appendix VI, Article 7(1).
[4] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Appendix VI, Articles 6(2)-6(3).
[5] M. Burianski, Faster, smarter, stronger – the new ICC Rules 2026, 22 May 2026, https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/faster-smarter-stronger-new-icc-rules-2026 (last accessed 28 May 2026).
[6] M. Burianski, Faster, smarter, stronger – the new ICC Rules 2026, 22 May 2026, https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/faster-smarter-stronger-new-icc-rules-2026 (last accessed 28 May 2026).
[7] S. Pfisterer, O. Uzun and F. von May, Revised ICC Arbitration Rules, 27 May 2026, https://www.homburger.ch/en/insights/revised-icc-arbitration-rules (last accessed 28 May 2026).
[8] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 24(1).
[9] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 25.
[10] International Chamber of Commerce, 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/ (last accessed 28 May 2026).
[11] International Chamber of Commerce, 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/ (last accessed 28 May 2026).
[12] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 30(1).
[13] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 30(2).
[14] See SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 47; 2024 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, Article 43.
[15] C. Salomon, New ICC Rules of Arbitration enhance efficiency, clarity and usability, 22 May 2026, https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/news/new-icc-rules-of-arbitration-enhance-efficiency-clarity-and-usability/ (last accessed on 28 May 2026).
[16] BCLP, ICC Arbitration Rules 2026: What you need to know, 28 May 2026, https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/events-insights-news/icc-arbitration-rules-2026-what-you-need-to-know.html (last accessed 28 May 2026).
[17] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 12(2).
[18] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 12(4).
[19] C. Salomon, New ICC Rules of Arbitration enhance efficiency, clarity and usability, 22 May 2026, https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/news/new-icc-rules-of-arbitration-enhance-efficiency-clarity-and-usability/ (last accessed on 28 May 2026).
[20] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 12(5).
[21] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 12(6).
[22] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 12(8).
[23] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 3(1).
[24] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 3(2).
[25] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 27(1).
[26] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 19(3).
[27] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 38(1).
[28] C. Salomon, New ICC Rules of Arbitration enhance efficiency, clarity and usability, 22 May 2026, https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/news/new-icc-rules-of-arbitration-enhance-efficiency-clarity-and-usability/ (last accessed on 28 May 2026).
[29] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 44(1).
[30] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 44(2).
[31] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Appendix III, Article 7.
[32] See SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 24; 2024 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, Article 13.4.
[33] ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration Under the ICC Rules of Arbitration, 1 January 2021, paras. 216-217.
[34] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 16(5).
[35] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 34.
[36] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 39(1).
[37] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 48.
[38] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Appendix IV, Article 1(2).
[39] 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, Appendix V, Article 1(3).
