Several of the amendments formalize practices that had already emerged in arbitral practice and were reflected in the somewhat dated ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals Concerning the Conduct of Arbitrations under the ICC Rules published in 2021 ("ICC Note"). Others are more innovative, most notably the introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions, which contemplate the issuance of a final award within three months of the initial Case Management Conference.

1. Expedited Arbitration: A Higher Threshold and a New Highly Expedited Track

1.1 Wider Scope of Application for Expedited Procedure Provisions

A central objective of the 2026 ICC Rules is to further promote speedy dispute resolution through expanded use of streamlined arbitration proceedings. The scope of the “traditional” Expedited Procedure Provisions ("EPP") is broadened with the introduction of the 2026 ICC Rules. For arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026, the default monetary threshold for the application of the EPP is increased from USD 3 million to USD 4 million. Given that the median amount in dispute in new ICC cases (according to the ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics for 2024) is approximately USD 5 million, this will bring a significantly larger proportion of the ICC’s caseload under the EPP. The amendment reflects a gradual shift in user expectations toward resolving even high-value commercial disputes faster and more cost-effectively.

One of the most significant existing features of the EPP is that the ICC Court may – and as a rule does – appoint a sole arbitrator instead of a three-member tribunal, notwithstanding any contrary provision of the arbitration agreement. With the higher threshold, users will want to carefully consider whether to accept this possibility or to opt out. 

1.2 Introduction of Highly Expedited Arbitration Track: Final Award within Three Months

In response to the frequently voiced criticism that even in expedited proceedings, arbitration may take too long for certain types of disputes, the 2026 ICC Rules introduce a further innovation: the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions ("HEAP"), set out in the new Appendix VI. The ICC has structured the HEAP as a pilot project, leaving open the possibility of refining or extending the mechanism in light of practical experience. The key features of the HEAP are:

• A final award must be rendered within three months of the initial CMC (Art. 7(1) of Appendix VI), which itself must be held within seven days after the sole arbitrator receives the file.
• The tribunal is composed of a sole arbitrator. If parties cannot agree on a candidate within 20 days, the ICC Court appoints one (Art. 4 of Appendix VI).
• The HEAP are opt‑in only – parties must expressly choose the application of the HEAP in the arbitration agreement or after the dispute has arisen; referring to the ICC Arbitration Rules in an arbitration clause does not, by itself, engage the HEAP.
• The parties may agree to an unreasoned award, further reducing drafting time and cost (Art. 7(2) of Appendix VI).

Parties may at a later stage of the proceedings agree that the HEAP shall no longer apply, and the ICC Court may also take the case out of the HEAP (e.g. at the tribunal’s or a party’s request) where the procedure proves unsuitable. In such cases, proceedings continue either under the regular EPP or under the standard Rules.

In practice, the HEAP are likely to appeal to parties in time-sensitive project and infrastructure disputes, where delays carry significant financial or operational consequences, as well as in disputes turning on relatively narrow legal or contractual issues with limited factual controversy. The combination of speed, finality and New York Convention enforceability may also make it attractive in other sectors. According to the ICC, the HEAP are most suited to: (i) lower-complexity commercial disputes; (ii) claims with a simple factual matrix; and (iii) the resolution of a discrete aspect of a dispute requiring swift determination – such as purchase price adjustment disputes. Crucially, as the HEAP are opt-in only, there is no monetary threshold for their application; the suitability of the mechanism turns entirely on the nature of the dispute rather than its value.

2. Arbitrator Disclosure and Confidentiality: A Reinforced but Balanced Framework

The 2026 ICC Rules reinforce, rather than fundamentally alter, the ICC’s existing disclosure framework for arbitrators. Two developments stand out:

• Art. 12(2) of the 2026 ICC Rules expressly provides that any doubt as to whether a fact or circumstance should be disclosed must be resolved in favor of disclosure. While this language clearly heightens the standard for disclosure, it also introduces significant scope for uncertainty by adding a subjective element to the disclosure obligations. In parallel, the new Art. 12(4) provides a counterbalancing clarification that a disclosure does not, in and of itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality – a principle previously found only in the ICC Note. This dual-track approach aims to encourage candid disclosure without deterring qualified arbitrators. It remains to be seen how the ICC Court will interpret the new disclosure obligation in practice.
• At the time of filing a Request, Answer or Request for Joinder, the new Art. 12(5) requires parties to provide the Secretariat with a list of persons and entities relevant to the prospective arbitrators’ conflict checks, together with supporting reasons. This effectively shifts part of the burden of identifying potential conflicts onto the parties themselves.

Confidentiality, by contrast, continues to be addressed with a relatively light institutional touch. The new Art. 12(8) of the 2026 ICC Rules provides for an express obligation on arbitrators and tribunal secretaries to keep “all matters relating to the arbitration” confidential. However, unlike many other arbitration rules, the ICC Rules do not provide for default confidentiality of the proceedings. Parties therefore retain substantial flexibility to shape confidentiality arrangements by contract or procedural order.

3. Emergency Arbitrator Provisions: Extension of Scope and Powers

The Emergency Arbitrator Provisions have been expanded and enhanced in several points. The major change is that Emergency Arbitrator proceedings can now be introduced not only by or against signatories to the arbitration agreement and their successors, but also by or against "any party for which the President is satisfied, prima facie, that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist" (Art. 1(2)(c) of Appendix IV of the 2026 ICC Rules). How the ICC Court President will calibrate this threshold in practice is an open question. If the same prima facie standard used in main proceedings applies, the threshold would be relatively low for the extension of Emergency Arbitration proceedings to non-signatories.

Second, Emergency Arbitrators are now expressly empowered by Art. 7 of Appendix IV to issue preliminary orders, including on an ex parte basis, to prevent conduct that might frustrate the purpose of the requested relief. This is a significant development: the availability of preliminary orders on an ex parte basis was previously contested and inconsistently applied. Its express codification materially strengthens the practical utility of Emergency Arbitrator proceedings, particularly where the risk of dissipation of assets or destruction of evidence is acute.

4. The Case Management Conference as the Central Procedural Milestone

One of the most visible structural changes in the 2026 ICC Rules is the removal of mandatory Terms of Reference ("ToR") for regular ICC arbitrations. Tribunals retain discretion to draw up ToR where they consider them useful, but they are no longer the default requirement that once distinguished the ICC from other arbitration institutions.

In their place, the initial CMC becomes the key procedural milestone:

• The CMC must be held within 30 days of the tribunal’s receipt of the file.
• The procedural timetable is fixed at or shortly after the CMC and is now communicated to the Secretariat (rather than the Court).
• The CMC is expressly recognized as the moment at which the proceedings are structured and streamlined.

The 2026 ICC Rules also reposition the cut‑off for new claims. Under the 2021 Rules, no new claims falling outside the ToR could be introduced without the tribunal's authorization. Under Art. 25 of the 2026 ICC Rules, the cut-off is brought forward: no new claims may be introduced after the initial CMC without the tribunal's authorization.

The 2026 ICC Rules also expressly provide that tribunals may conduct further case management conferences at any stage of the proceedings (Article 24(4) of the 2026 ICC Rules). The standardization of such “midstream CMCs” reflects an increasing practice in complex cases and allows tribunals to adjust the timetable, address new issues, and, particularly in civil law jurisdictions, explore settlement as the case develops.

5. Early Determination: Codifying the Power to Dismiss Manifestly Unmeritorious Claims

The 2026 ICC Rules introduce an express mechanism for “early determination” of claims and defenses. Article 30 allows any party to request that the tribunal determine, on an expedited basis, that one or more claims or defenses are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The tribunal has broad discretion whether to entertain such an application at all.

In practice, many tribunals already applied forms of summary disposition, and the technique was also reflected in the ICC Note. Its inclusion in the 2026 ICC Rules is intended to encourage tribunals to use the tool more confidently by expressly codifying that power. From a user perspective, early determination applications will require careful calibration: while the mechanism offers the prospect of significant time and cost savings where a claim or defense is clearly unmeritorious, an unsuccessful application risks antagonizing the tribunal and consuming the very resources the procedure is designed to conserve. The broad discretion vested in the tribunal to decline the application altogether underlines that the mechanism is a tool of considered strategy rather than routine procedure.

6. Further Amendments: Costs, Digitalization and Procedural Flexibility

Another longstanding criticism of arbitration concerns its cost, particularly in lower-value disputes. The 2026 ICC Rules seek to address this, at least in part, through a recalibration of the ICC’s administrative costs scale. Administrative costs are reduced for disputes below USD 10 million, while the scale is adjusted upward for higher-value cases, including through an increase of the maximum cap.

The 2026 ICC Rules also continue the ICC’s shift toward a fully digital procedural framework. Communications with the Secretariat are, by default, conducted electronically. Awards may be signed electronically or in counterparts and notified by electronic means, subject to applicable mandatory laws. The 2026 ICC Rules also clarify that hearings and tribunal deliberations may take place in person, remotely or in hybrid form, with tribunals enjoying broad procedural discretion after consulting the parties.

Two further procedural adjustments are worth noting. First, Article 34 replaces the longstanding default six-month time limit for final awards – previously measured from the last signature of the Terms of Reference – with a flexible approach under which the President of the ICC Court will set or extend the deadline based on the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the tribunal. This reflects a logical consequence of the removal of mandatory Terms of Reference and mirrors the practice that had already developed under the 2021 Rules. Second, Article 39(1) extends from 30 to 45 days the period within which the tribunal may correct an award on its own initiative, providing greater scope for tribunals to remedy clerical or computational errors without party application.

Additionally, the 2026 ICC Rules provide greater flexibility where an arbitrator can no longer participate late in the proceedings. Under Article 16(5), the ICC Court may allow a truncated tribunal to continue, rather than appoint a replacement, after the last hearing or final substantive submissions. The aim is to avoid unnecessary delay and cost at an advanced stage of the arbitration.

Finally, Article 44 formally codifies the role of tribunal secretaries within the ICC Rules, reflecting their increasingly common and accepted role in international arbitration while simultaneously setting up safeguards designed to preserve the integrity of the arbitral process. Appendix III, Article 7 of the 2026 ICC Rules further specifies that tribunals may claim reimbursement for reasonable and justified expenses incurred by a tribunal secretary, while expressly prohibiting direct fee arrangements between the tribunal and the parties – this reflects the previous ICC Secretariat’s practice already set out in the ICC Note and preserves the principle that the parties should not be burdened with the costs of a tribunal secretary, save for travel expenses.

Conclusion

The 2026 ICC Rules introduce a number of new features that help to refine and streamline a system that has already proven effective in practice. While the revised Rules remain recognizably familiar – despite the change in numbering of the Articles – they develop the existing framework along established lines: greater speed and flexibility, enhanced cost efficiency, deeper technological integration, and increased clarity in disclosure and case management.

With the 2026 ICC Rules entering into force on 1 June 2026, parties and counsel should act now. Existing arbitration clauses should be reviewed to consider whether opt-outs from the expanded EPP remain appropriate and whether HEAP opt-in clauses might suit new contracts. The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference and the elevation of the CMC as the central procedural milestone also call for a shift in how parties prepare for and approach the early stages of proceedings.

If you require advice on how the 2026 ICC Rules may affect your arbitration agreements, pending or anticipated proceedings, or procedural strategy, please reach out to the undersigned or your regular contact at Schellenberg Wittmer.