Clarity, Efficiency and Usability – Key Changes in the ICC Arbitration Rules for Enhanced Global Cooperation

Authors : Dina Prokic, Eva Wu, Stephen L. Drymer, Eric Bédard

Arbitral institutions play an important role in today’s expanding and fast-paced world of dispute resolution, particularly in the field of international arbitration. Institutions and their users currently face a multitude of challenges, ranging from sanctions regimes, to trade fragmentation, to the (im)proper use of AI, to name a few, as well as sometimes competing objectives such as preserving confidentiality, promoting predictability and consistency, enabling diversity on arbitral tribunals and ensuring that arbitrators have the requisite expertise. Staying relevant requires flexibility and the willingness and ability to adapt to the needs of the parties – part of the very essence of arbitration.

On 1 June 2026, the 2026 Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), one of the most preferred arbitral institutions worldwide,¹ including in Canada,² came into effect (“2026 Rules”). This latest revision comes just five years after the previous update, underscoring the rapid pace of change in arbitral practice and the importance of working with counsel who stay at the forefront of these developments.

The ICC has also updated its essential Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration (the “Note”).

We discuss here, briefly, several of the key changes made by the 2026 Rules. We then address a few important issues that were not tackled by the revision.

Novelties 

The 2026 Rules introduce several key changes: 

• Rendering the Terms of Reference optional rather than mandatory; 
• Introducing Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions; 
• Enhancing and increasing the threshold for the Expedited Procedure Provisions; 
• Introducing updates to the Emergency Arbitration Provisions; 
• Enabling parties to seek an early determination of their claim; 
• Imposing confidentiality obligations on arbitrators and tribunal secretaries; and 
• Requiring parties to submit disclosure lists for conflict checks. 

Shifting from Terms of Reference To Streamlined Case Management 

The 2026 Rules mark a significant departure from ICC tradition by making the Terms of Reference (“TOR”) optional. With the removal of TOR, the cut-off for introducing new claims under Articles 24 and 25 of the 2026 Rules is now the first case management conference. This change was partially informed by ICC’s prior experience with the Expedited Arbitration procedures (introduced in 2017), which do not envisage TOR.

A New Fast Lane – Highly expedited arbitration 

As a pilot project, the ICC now offers the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”, as they are known), which provide for a final award to be issued in as little as three months from the initial case management conference. This opt-in mechanism satisfies user demand for faster dispute resolution – particularly for time-sensitive cases, recurring contractual relationships, or to dispose of unmeritorious claims before they consume months or years of proceedings. Contrary to the existing Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”), the HEAP framework is purely consensual and does not apply by default below a certain monetary threshold.  

Designed for maximum efficiency, the process is highly streamlined: a sole arbitrator, front-loaded submissions, and the possibility of resolving disputes solely on written materials without hearings or witness examinations. Joinder and consolidation are excluded to favour speed and procedural simplicity.  

Expedited Arbitration – Increased Thresholds and Stronger Protections 

Since the introduction of the EPP in 2017, the ICC has administered over 1,000 cases following these provisions. Under the 2026 Rules, the core EPP framework remains unchanged – it retains its sole arbitrator, streamlined procedure, and six-month timeline for issuing final awards. However, its reach has expanded significantly. Most notably, the automatic threshold for applying expedited arbitration increases to US$4 million for claims brought under arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026, reflecting both the rising value of disputes and strong user confidence in faster ICC proceedings. Nevertheless, the rules seek to safeguard party autonomy by maintaining the parties’ freedom to request or refuse to have their case conducted under the EPP. 

Strengthening Emergency Arbitration Through Ex Parte Relief

Building on the flexibility and efficiency of the EPP, the 2026 Rules also introduce updates to the Emergency Arbitration Provisions (“EA”). 

The EA framework has been significantly strengthened by introducing a preliminary order mechanism that allows for ex parte relief, which was rarely seen under the previous iteration of the Rules. Parties may now seek urgent measures, such as preventing asset dissipation or preserving evidence, even if the opposing party is only notified after the emergency arbitrator has ruled.  

Early Determination – A Sharper Tool for Early Wins 

The 2026 Rules, via Article 30, introduce early determination as a binding procedural mechanism. Parties can now seek the dismissal of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Early determination is a powerful tactical option: respondents can target weak claims before costs escalate, while claimants must ensure their cases are robust from the outset. While this possibility was mentioned in the 2021 ICC Note on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules (paras. 109 to 114), its elevation into the 2026 Rules reflects feedback from the global community and removes uncertainty about a tribunal’s use of this tool.  

By embedding this mechanism in the 2026 Rules, the ICC aligns with broader arbitration trends, reinforcing a more proactive approach to cost and time management. 

Confidentiality Obligations for Arbitrators and Tribunal Secretaries 

We live in an era of rapidly innovating digital technologies in which, among other things, data security is a paramount concern. The ICC now imposes an express confidentiality obligation on arbitrators and tribunal secretaries under Articles 12(8) and 44(2) of the 2026 Rules, respectively. Building on pre-existing confidentiality obligations applicable to all participants in the ICC’s work, these provisions expressly require arbitrators and tribunal secretaries to protect the confidentiality of all matters relating to the arbitration, subject to limited exceptions. The tribunal, parties and representatives are expected to implement appropriate security protocols that reflect the applicable regulatory regime to protect personal, sensitive, or confidential information. 

This change reflects the ICC’s deliberate choice not to impose a blanket confidentiality obligation on all parties. ICC’s approach thus differs from the requirements of certain other arbitral institutions, including those set out in Article 45 of the 2024 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, Rule 59 of the 2025 SIAC Arbitration Rules, and Article 30 of the 2020 LCIA Arbitration Rules. Instead, this approach preserves flexibility and transparency, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach may be unsuitable, particularly in cases involving states or matters of public interest. Parties thus remain free to tailor confidentiality provisions to meet their specific needs, yet it remains the case that where protection of sensitive or confidential information is critical the matter is arguably best addressed in the parties’ arbitration agreement rather than awaiting the formation of a tribunal to address the issue. 

Disclosure Lists – A New Party Obligation 

The past several years have seen the consequences of untimely or missing disclosure in many cases. Awards have been annulled due to perceived relations between an arbitrator and a party’s expert, and counsel have been removed due to their prior professional affiliation with a third-party funder where those circumstances were not previously disclosed. It thus comes as no surprise that the 2026 Rules introduce a new party-led disclosure obligation. Under the new Article 12(5), parties must identify relevant individuals and entities that prospective arbitrators should consider for conflict checks. This marks a notable shift from prior practice, in which the ICC Secretariat largely compiled such information from the Request for Arbitration and the Answer.  

By placing the onus on those with actual knowledge of the persons likely to play a role in the arbitration, the 2026 Rules enable arbitrators to perform targeted conflict checks and more effectively preempt disruptive challenges that may otherwise arise later in the case. 

(Missed?) Opportunities for further revisions

While the 2026 Rules modernize many aspects of ICC arbitral procedure, they remain silent on several issues that other institutions have chosen to address.  

• First, the Rules are silent as to the use of generative AI, despite its growing impact on legal practice. This omission is notable given recent developments, such as the Québec Superior Court’s judgment in which an arbitral award was annulled because of the arbitrator’s reliance on “hallucinated” legal authorities generated by AI. This is one of the first known cases of annulment due to improper use of AI by an arbitrator. Parties and arbitrators alike ought to approach the use of AI with award enforceability risks in mind.  Other institutions, such as the SCC Arbitration Institute, have issued dedicated guidelines for the use of AI in proceedings to emphasize the importance of safeguards including human oversight. Another example is the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators’ “Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration”. For its part, the ICC has opted, for now at least, to leave this issue to evolving best practices.  

• Second, the 2026 Rules still do not expressly address the arbitrator’s role in facilitating settlements. This facet of the dispute resolution process remains governed by the Note, which encourages tribunals to consider various ICC Commission reports which address settlement, such as the 2023 report on “Facilitating Settlement in International Arbitration” (see p. 42, para. 5). ICC’s stance contrasts with more proactive approaches adopted by other institutions (see, e.g.  Article 26 of the 2018 DIS Arbitration Rules).  

• Finally, despite its broader, loudly proclaimed general institutional support for initiatives such as the Equal Representation in Arbitration (“ERA”) Pledge, the 2026 Rules omit any diversity-related provisions. In comparison, the 2026 CEPANI Arbitration Rules, which also come into force on June 1, 2026, expressly require diversity and inclusion to be considered in the arbitrator appointment process (see Article 15).  

Final Remarks 

Around the world, there is strong demand for efficient and effective means of resolving disputes that do not sacrifice fairness or party autonomy. Against this backdrop, the ICC seeks to retain its market position by implementing procedural mechanisms such as highly expedited arbitration (three-month awards) and early determination while removing longstanding requirements such as the TOR. For parties, the message is clear: the 2026 Rules do not seek merely to modernize ICC arbitration – they seek to provide a framework that emphasizes a more active management of time, cost, and outcome, provided that parties and their counsel are prepared to use these tools strategically from the outset.  

¹ In 2025, 39% survey respondents to the International Arbitration survey conducted by the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London identified the ICC Rules when it came to selecting their preferred set of arbitration rules. See Queen Mary University of London / White & Case, “2025 International Arbitration Survey: The path forward: Realities and opportunities in arbitration,” at 10.
² Likewise in Canada, FTI Consulting surveyed counsel across the country in the Canadian Arbitration Report 2024 | FTI Consulting. Here, the ICC once again ranked above other institutions, with 33% of respondents stating that it was their institution of choice for international contracts. See FTI Consulting, “Canadian Arbitration Report 2024,” at 27.