ICC Arbitration Rules Effective June 1, 2026: Key Changes and Practical Takeaways for Parties and Counsel

The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has released the 2026 ICC Rules of Arbitration (the “2026 Rules”). These new rules apply to arbitrations commenced on or after June 1, 2026, unless the parties have agreed to submit to the Rules in effect on an earlier date.

The 2026 Rules introduce targeted updates to the 2021 ICC Rules of Arbitration (the “2021 Rules”) designed to improve efficiency, clarity, and case management while preserving the flexibility, neutrality, and procedural integrity that underpin ICC Arbitration. Parties and counsel with existing or future ICC arbitration agreements should review these changes carefully.

1. Elimination of Terms of Reference: The Initial Case Management Conference Now Serves as Claim Cutoff Date

What Changed. One of the most structurally significant changes in the 2026 Rules is the elimination of the Terms of Reference (“TOR”). Under the 2021 Rules, the arbitral tribunal was required to prepare a TOR as soon as it received the file from the Secretariat, setting out, among other things, a summary of the parties’ claims, the issues to be determined, and the applicable procedural framework. The 2026 Rules remove the TOR requirement entirely and instead place greater emphasis on the initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”). While the 2021 Rules required a CMC in connection with the TOR process, the 2026 Rules now require the tribunal to hold an initial CMC within 30 days of receiving the file from the Secretariat, subject to extension by the Secretary General upon a reasoned request (2026 Rules, Article 24(1)). Critically, the initial CMC now serves as the operative cutoff date for new claims (2026 Rules, Article 25), which was previously tied to the signing or ICC Court approval of the TOR under the 2021 Rules.

What This Means in Practice. Eliminating the TOR may streamline proceedings and reduce some initial costs. With the initial CMC replacing the TOR as the claim cutoff date, parties should ensure that all intended claims are fully developed and properly asserted before the conference takes place. Deferred or incomplete claims risk being barred from later assertion without tribunal authorization.

2. New Early Determination Mechanism (Article 30)

What Changed. The 2026 Rules introduce an entirely new Early Determination mechanism, allowing any party to seek disposition of one or more claims or defenses at an early stage of the arbitration. 2026 Rules, Article 30. A party may apply for Early Determination on the grounds that the relevant claims or defenses are either (a) manifestly without merit; or (b) manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. 2026 Rules, Article 30(1). The tribunal retains discretion over whether to allow the application to proceed. If it does, the tribunal may adopt whatever procedural measures it considers appropriate after consulting the parties. 2026 Rules, Article 30(2).

What This Means in Practice. The new Early Determination mechanism resembles summary judgment or summary disposition procedures commonly used in US litigation and certain arbitral forums, including the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). The standard under the ICC Rules — “manifestly” without merit — is, however, demanding. In particular, it appears narrower than the AAA standard, which permits dispositive motions where “the moving party has shown that the motion is likely to succeed and to dispose of or narrow the issues in the case.” AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules, Rule 34(a).

As a practical matter, the Early Determination mechanism is likely to be used primarily to address facially deficient claims, frivolous defenses, or plainly defective jurisdictional arguments—not to resolve heavily contested factual or legal disputes on an expedited basis. Parties considering an Early Determination application should weigh the potential efficiency benefits against the risk that unsuccessful applications may increase costs or delay the proceeding.

3. New Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (Article 33, Appendix VI)

What Changed. The 2026 Rules introduce an entirely new Highly Expedited Arbitration (“HEA”) for parties looking for a simplified procedure that would allow an award to be made within three months of the initial case management conference, regardless of the amount in dispute. 2026 Rules, Article 33. The HEA provisions are designed to provide an ultra-fast-track arbitration process with significantly compressed deadlines and streamlined procedures. Key features of the HEA procedure include:

• Full Statement of Claim Required with Request for Arbitration. The claimant must submit its complete Statement of Claim together with its Request for Arbitration, including the legal and factual basis supporting its claims and, to the extent possible, the evidence on which it relies. 2026 Rules, Articles 2(1)-(2) of Appendix VI.
• Sole Arbitrator. Disputes will be decided by a sole arbitrator. 2026 Rules, Article 4(1) of Appendix VI. If the parties do not jointly nominate an arbitrator within 20 days of the respondent’s receipt of the Request and Statement of Claim, the ICC Court will appoint the arbitrator directly. 2026 Rules, Article 4(2) of Appendix VI.
• Expedited Initial CMC. The tribunal must hold an initial CMC within seven days of receiving the file from the Secretariat. 2026 Rules, Article 6(1) of Appendix VI.
• Broad Tribunal Discretion to Streamline Proceedings. The tribunal has discretion to adopt procedural measures. In particular, the tribunal may, after consultation with the parties, decide not to allow requests for document production, limit the number, length and scope of written submissions and written witness evidence (both fact and expert witnesses), or decide the dispute solely based on the documents the parties have submitted, with no hearing and no examination of witnesses or experts. 2026 Rules, Articles 6(2)-(3) of Appendix VI.
• Three-Month Award Deadline. The tribunal must render its final reasoned award within three months of the initial CMC (2026 Rules, Articles 7(1)-(2) of Appendix VI)—half the time permitted under the standard Expedited Procedure.

What This Means in Practice.

• The HEA procedure is likely best suited for disputes involving limited factual complexity, narrow legal issues, and well-developed documentary records. While the compressed timelines and restrictions on extensions allow for quick resolution, the procedure places significant pressure on both parties to move quickly and efficiently from the start of the arbitration.
• The requirement that the Request and Statement of Claim be fully developed from the outset is significant. Because claimants must present a full case at the outset, parties considering the HEA procedure should expect substantial front-loaded preparation before filing.
• Parties interested in using the HEA procedure may wish to address it expressly in their arbitration clauses at the contracting stage, rather than attempting to negotiate into the procedure after a dispute arises. The ICC has published recommended model clauses for parties wishing to opt into the HEA procedure, available here. 

4. Increased Threshold for the Expedited Procedure Provisions (Article 32, Appendix V)

What Changed. The Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”) will apply if the amount in dispute (calculated at the time the Secretariat receives the Answer) does not exceed the threshold amount. The 2026 Rules increase the threshold from $3,000,000 to $4,000,000.

What This Means in Practice. Parties involved in higher-value or more complex disputes should consider whether the compressed timelines and streamlined procedures available under the EPP provide sufficient opportunity to develop factual and legal arguments fully, particularly where extensive discovery or expert evidence may be necessary.

5. Removal of the Six-Month Time Limit for Rendering the Final Award in Standard Proceedings (Article 34)

What Changed. Although the 2026 Rules introduce new mechanisms aimed at accelerating proceedings, they simultaneously eliminate the default six-month time limit for rendering a final award in standard arbitrations. 2026 Rules, Article 34. Instead, the 2026 Rules provide that the president shall fix, and may later extend, the time limit for rendering the final award, taking into account (a) the procedural timetable established during the initial CMC, or shortly thereafter pursuant to Article 24(2); and (b) any reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal. 2026 Rules, Article 34.

What This Means in Practice. In practice, the six-month time limit was frequently extended and rarely operated as a meaningful constraint. The new framework instead places greater emphasis on the procedural timetable established early in the proceeding, making the initial CMC even more important.

6. Preliminary Orders in Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings

What Changed. Article 7 of Appendix IV is entirely new. A party may, at any stage of the emergency arbitrator proceedings, request a preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the Application. Such a request may be made and decided upon without notice to all other parties. The Secretariat will transmit the Application and the request for a Preliminary Order to all other parties as soon as the emergency arbitrator has decided on the Preliminary Order request. If the Preliminary Order is granted, the emergency arbitrator must immediately afford all other parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

What This Means in Practice. The Preliminary Order functions similarly to a temporary restraining order in court proceedings. Parties now have an initial layer of protection against dissipation of assets or other frustrating conduct before the Emergency Order is made. 

* * *

The amended rules adopt several other changes of note. For instance, the ICC Court review of tribunal awards now expressly must consider the validity and enforceability of the award under applicable law. The rules will now also expressly provide a process for appointment of tribunal secretaries, a longstanding practice in ICC arbitrations not previously covered by the rules. Also of note, if a party uses a third party for payment, satisfactory evidence is required to establish the legal relationship between the third-party payer and the party in the case. These and other rule changes, including those addressed above, may have a significant impact on the conduct of an arbitration in a given matter. For further information, or to discuss how these changes may apply to your specific matter, please contact the authors or any member of your Goodwin team.