Legal Insights
29. May 2026
Moritz von Kulessa LL.B.
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is one of the world’s leading arbitration institutions. It has now published its new Rules of Arbitration (available here). These will come into force on 1 June 2026 and will apply to all proceedings instituted on or after that date ("ICC Rules 2026"). With this revision, the ICC is responding to ongoing developments in international arbitration practice. At the same time, it is continuing its efforts to improve the efficiency, clarity and manageability of its rules.
The following section summarises the most important changes compared to the ICC Rules of Arbitration 2021 and puts them into practical context:
Driven by the principle of efficiency, the ICC Rules 2026 take account of the changing technological environment. Accordingly, they provide that all procedural correspondence must, as a general rule, be conducted electronically. An exception is only possible if a party requests it (e.g. in the case of service against acknowledgement of receipt) or if electronic transmission is not practicable.
In this respect, the ICC Rules 2026 differ, for example, from the Rules of the German Institution of Arbitration (Art. 4.2 DIS-SchO), under which the statement of claim must still be submitted in paper form.
Art. 12 of the ICC Rules 2026 strengthens the disclosure standard for arbitrators. Art. 12(2) stipulates that "any doubt on the part of the prospective arbitrator as to whether disclosure is required shall be resolved in favour of disclosure". Art. 12(4) clarifies that "disclosure in itself does not constitute a lack of independence or impartiality".
These principles have been incorporated to encourage prompt and full disclosure. The aim is to strengthen confidence in arbitration as a whole. At the same time, it is intended to make it clear to potential arbitrators that disclosure should not be construed as an admission of a conflict of interest.
Art. 12(5) of the ICC Rules 2026 assists potential arbitrators in fulfilling their disclosure obligations. To this end, the parties must submit a list of individuals and entities to the Secretariat when filing their statement of claim, statement of defence or application to intervene. This list should include all persons and entities which, in the party’s view, the arbitrators should take into account when assessing potential conflicts of interest, together with the reasons for this. The new rules reduce the risk of bias issues in the proceedings because the parties are involved at an early stage. However, the ultimate responsibility for disclosure remains with the arbitrator.
The abolition of mandatory Terms of Reference (Art. 23 ICC Rules 2021) is arguably the most significant structural change in the ICC Rules 2026: the Terms of Reference ("ToR") are no longer a mandatory procedural step.
With the abolition of the mandatory ToR, the Case Management Conference ("CMC") gains considerably in importance. The CMC remains mandatory under Art. 24 of the ICC Rules 2026 and must be held within 30 days of the arbitral tribunal receiving the case file. The procedural timetable is set at the first CMC or as soon as possible thereafter.
Important to note: Following the first CMC, under Art. 25 of the ICC Rules 2026, no party may submit new claims without the permission of the arbitral tribunal.
The CMC becomes – as is already common practice – the key procedural milestone. Parties and lawyers must ensure that all potential claims are fully identified and assessed before the first CMC takes place. Otherwise, the risk of claims becoming time-barred in ICC proceedings increases.
Art. 30 of the ICC Rules 2026 provides that a party may apply to the arbitral tribunal for an early ruling. The arbitral tribunal shall examine whether one or more claims or defences are manifestly unfounded or manifestly outside its jurisdiction.
The arbitral tribunal decides at its own discretion whether to grant the request. If so, it may dismiss manifestly unfounded claims or counterclaims at an early stage of the proceedings. This procedural option is very welcome, as it can significantly enhance the efficiency of ICC arbitration proceedings. In practice, it is not uncommon for proceedings to be inflated and protracted by manifestly unfounded counterclaims.
Art. 34 of the ICC Rules 2026 replaces the previously applicable rigid six-month time limit for rendering the award (from the date of the Terms of Reference) with a more flexible solution. Henceforth, the President of the ICC shall set the time limit for the final award. In doing so, he shall take into account (a) the procedural timetable or (b) a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal.
Art. 33 of the ICC Rules 2026, read in conjunction with Annex VI, introduces new Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions ("HEAP"). The HEAP apply only on an opt-in basis, i.e. both parties must expressly agree to their application. The aim is to reach a final award within three months of the first CMC. This is intended to meet the global economy’s need for the rapid resolution of certain disputes or individual points of contention – regardless of the amount in dispute.
The key features of the HEAP:
Due to the very short time limits, HEAPs will primarily be used in smaller disputes or in cases where very limited points of law or fact need to be clarified.
Since their introduction in 2017, the Expedited Procedure Provisions ("EPP") have significantly increased efficiency in ICC proceedings. They provide for the standard appointment of a sole arbitrator, shorter procedural deadlines, restrictions on written submissions and oral hearings, and an award within six months of the first CMC.
Under the ICC Rules 2026, the value threshold for the automatic application of the EPP is raised from USD 3 million to USD 4 million. This applies to arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. The amendment broadens the scope of disputes eligible for expedited arbitration proceedings.
The parties remain free to determine whether their case will be conducted under the EPP, regardless of whether it falls within the scope of automatic EPP application.
Art. 31 of the ICC Rules 2026, in conjunction with Annex IV, strengthens the Emergency Arbitration procedure and provides clearer rules governing it. This concerns the ordering of provisional measures of interim relief by an emergency arbitrator. Annex IV clarifies, in particular, against which parties provisional measures may be sought. These are:
Thus, for the first time, the ICC Rules 2026 expressly recognise interim measures ordered by an emergency arbitrator in emergency arbitration proceedings. Such measures may also be applied for and decided ex parte, i.e. without the prior knowledge of the other party.
Although this has already been common practice to date, Annex IV provides such measures with a welcome legal framework.
Art. 44 of the ICC Rules 2026 codifies for the first time the possibility of appointing an arbitration secretary. In arbitration practice, the arbitral tribunal regularly appoints a secretary by agreement with the parties. This person works under the direction and supervision of the arbitral tribunal and has no decision-making powers. Art.44 formalises this existing practice and clarifies that arbitral secretaries must meet the same requirements of independence, impartiality and confidentiality as the arbitrators.
Furthermore, Art. 7 of Annex III to the ICC Rules 2026 provides that the arbitral tribunal may claim reimbursement of reasonable and justified expenses incurred by a secretary. The appointment of a secretary must not result in any additional financial burden for the parties.
Art. 40 of the ICC Rules 2026 now contains detailed provisions on ICC fees, advances on costs and arbitrators’ fees.
Furthermore, the ICC administrative fees have been slightly reduced for smaller proceedings and increased for larger proceedings.
The ICC Rules 2026 largely reflect what was already the practice in most arbitration proceedings (even without explicit codification). In this respect, they do not constitute genuine innovations, but rather a codification of certain arbitration practices.
The move away from the previously mandatory ToR, which in practice – apart from creating additional work for the parties and arbitrators – brought no added value whatsoever, is to be expressly welcomed. The future focus on the CMC will do much more justice to practice.
By raising the value-of-claim threshold to USD 4 million, significantly more proceedings will in future fall under the automatically applicable EPP. The EPP can then no longer be opted out of without the other party’s consent. This is problematic, particularly in technically complex proceedings – such as in construction and plant engineering. In such cases, concluding proceedings within six months is impractical and usually unachievable.
Accordingly, when drafting ICC arbitration clauses – particularly in the construction and plant engineering sectors – it should be considered at an early stage whether the EPP should be excluded from the outset. Otherwise, there is a risk that one may inadvertently remain bound by the EPP.
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Turnstile. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
