The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has approved a revised version of its Rules of Arbitration, which will enter into force on 1 June 2026 (“2026 ICC Rules”), replacing the 2021 Rules of Arbitration (“2021 ICC Rules”). The revisions are designed to improve efficiency, clarity and user-friendliness, ensuring ICC arbitration remains responsive to global user needs. The ICC will publish the 2026 Arbitration Rules and issue additional information and practical guidance in advance of 1 June 2026. Claudia Salomon, President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, has given a preview of the key changes, which are discussed below.
1. Introduction of a Highly Expedited Procedure
The 2026 ICC Rules will introduce a new, highly expedited procedure, enabling tribunals to issue a final award within just three months. This mechanism is designed to meet the increasing demand for swift and enforceable decisions in urgent, time-sensitive disputes. It will operate as an opt-in process and is being launched as a pilot project, subject to ongoing review.
Under this framework, disputes may be resolved solely on the basis of written submissions, without a hearing, and parties may agree to the issuance of an award without reasons. Joinder and consolidation will not be permitted, and parties will be required to present their full case at the outset, including all evidence and arguments. It remains to be seen which sectors will adopt this procedure, although it is likely to appeal to industries such as cryptocurrency and commodities where speed is often commercially critical.
By way of comparison, the 2023 SCC Arbitration Rules include a “Summary Procedure” under Article 39, which allows a tribunal to determine claims or issues on an expedited basis. After consulting the parties, the tribunal may identify matters suitable for summary determination and adopt a compressed timetable, potentially resulting in a decision within a matter of weeks in particularly urgent cases.
2. Increased Threshold for Expedited Procedure (from USD 3m to USD 4m)
Under the 2026 ICC Rules, the monetary threshold for the expedited procedure will increase from USD 3 million to USD 4 million. This change reflects the ICC’s recognition that expedited arbitration is frequently used in higher-value disputes, often well above the existing threshold.
3. Time Limits for Arbitral Awards to Be Set by the ICC President
Under Article 31 of the 2021 ICC Rules, arbitral tribunals are generally required to issue their final award within six months from the date the Terms of Reference are signed or approved by the ICC Court, unless this period is extended by the Court upon a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal or on its own initiative.
In practice, this deadline is often extended, sometimes significantly. To address this, the 2026 ICC Rules introduce a more flexible and realistic approach: the time limit for rendering awards will be determined by the ICC’s President. Further guidance on how this new system will operate in practice is expected from the ICC in the coming weeks.
By comparison, other leading arbitration rules, such as the UNCITRAL and LCIA rules, do not impose fixed deadlines for issuing awards, instead allowing tribunals to tailor the timetable to the complexity of the dispute and the needs of the parties.
4. Removal of the Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference (“TORs”), long considered a defining feature of ICC arbitration (Article 23 of the 2021 ICC Rules), will no longer be mandatory under the 2026 ICC Rules. In parallel, the deadline for introducing new claims, without tribunal approval, will move to the first case management conference.
The ICC has historically been unique in requiring TORs as a formal procedural step, whereas other leading arbitral institutions, including the LCIA, SIAC and SCC, rely instead on procedural orders and case management conferences to define the scope and conduct of proceedings.
TORs were originally designed to clearly set out the scope of the dispute, identify the parties’ claims and key issues, and establish a structured procedural framework at an early stage. Their purpose was to improve efficiency and minimise jurisdictional challenges by ensuring alignment before the arbitration progressed. However, in practice, TORs have often become a formalistic and time-consuming step with limited added value. The ICC’s experience with expedited arbitration, where TORs are not required, demonstrates that proceedings can remain efficient without them.
5. Fully Electronic Communications and Awards
Codifying established practice, the 2026 ICC Rules will specify that all communications and submissions should be conducted in electronic form (be it via email, ICC Case Connect or other digital means). This reflects a continued move toward greater efficiency, cost reduction, and environmental sustainability in arbitration proceedings.
That said, ICC Case Connect is not always user-friendly and, in practice, can add an additional administrative step to each submission without providing a commensurate practical benefit. It is unfortunate that the ICC has chosen to retain this feature. To borrow the German term, ICC Case Connect may be seen as a Verschlimmbesserung: a well-intentioned improvement that, in practice, makes the process more cumbersome.
Upon consultation with the parties, arbitral tribunals will also be empowered to sign awards electronically. However, parties will still be able to request hard copies where necessary, for instance for enforcement purposes, as national courts often require certified hard copies or original signed documents.
6. Enhanced Disclosure Requirements
Under the 2026 ICC Rules, from the outset of the arbitration, parties will be required to provide a list of relevant entities and individuals connected to the dispute, enabling arbitrators to identify potential conflicts more easily. While any uncertainty should generally be resolved in favour of disclosure, at the same time, the Rules are expected to clarify that disclosure alone does not imply a lack of independence or impartiality.
7. Confidentiality
Confidentiality in international arbitration proceedings entails a broad obligation not to disclose information about the proceedings to any third party and is seen as one of the perceived advantages of international arbitration over state court proceedings. The ICC considered introducing default confidentiality for ICC arbitrations under the 2026 ICC Rules but ultimately decided against it. A blanket confidentiality regime was seen as potentially problematic, as it would require parties to contract out of the default position and negotiate exceptions, which could create uncertainty and additional complexity.
By comparison, arbitral proceedings are confidential by default under several leading arbitration rules. The 2020 LCIA Arbitration Rules (Article 30), the 2025 SIAC Arbitration Rules (Rule 59), and the 2024 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (Article 45) similarly require confidentiality of proceedings, awards and documents. However, the 2013 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, for instance, do not provide for confidentiality by default, leaving it to party agreement or tribunal discretion, as the ICC has decided to do.
Final Remarks
The 2026 ICC Rules reflect a deliberate shift toward greater efficiency, flexibility and modernisation of arbitral practice. The introduction of highly expedited procedures, the move to default electronic communications, and the removal or softening of historically rigid features, such as the Terms of Reference and fixed time limits, demonstrate an effort to align the Rules with how arbitration is already conducted in practice.
Many of these changes raise practical questions. The success of the highly expedited procedure, for example, will depend on whether parties are willing to trade procedural depth for speed, and in which sectors this balance is commercially acceptable. Similarly, entrusting the ICC’s President with setting time limits for awards introduces flexibility, but also a degree of unpredictability that may concern some users.
Having been involved in dozens of ICC arbitrations over the past two decades, Aceris Law has seen first-hand both the strengths of ICC arbitration and the practical challenges that can arise in its administration. The 2026 ICC Rules appear to be a welcome step toward greater efficiency and flexibility, particularly through the removal of the Terms of Reference as a mandatory procedural step, which in many cases had become more formalistic than useful.
