ICC 2026: Setting the pace, staying in step

Why is this important?  These changes don’t just modernise the ICC Rules.  They set a new benchmark for efficiency and integrity in arbitration.  By aligning with global best practices and advancing key reforms, the ICC is aiming to maintain its position at the forefront of arbitral innovation. 

Streamlining the arbitral process 

Article 24 - mandatory Terms of Reference ("ToR") are now history.  The ICC’s long-standing requirement for ToR, dating back to the 1920s, has been replaced by a more agile approach.  The first Case Management Conference ("CMC") is now the procedural milestone, acting as the cut-off for new claims and counterclaims (unless permitted by the tribunal (Rule 34)).  This brings the ICC into line with other institutions, such as the DIS (CMC within 21 days of tribunal constitution (Art 27.2)) and SIAC (CMC as soon as practicable), making the start of an ICC arbitration faster and more straightforward. 

Article 30 - early determination is now expressly provided for.  Previously encouraged, this power is now formalised, echoing recent legislative developments like the English Arbitration Act and similar provisions in the LCIA (Art 22.2(viii)), SCC (Art 29), and SAKIG (section 29) rules.  Tribunals have historically been slow or reluctant to deploy early determination, but these reforms respond directly to user frustration and signal a stronger push for decisive, early outcomes. 

Driving efficiency 

Appendix VI, Article 6 - Highly Expedited Arbitration Process ("HEAP") introduces a turbo-charged procedure for lower complexity arbitrations with a simple factual matrix aiming for resolution within three months of the CMC.  There is no automatic application or threshold amount, resting on an opt-in basis.  This process mirrors SIAC’s Streamlined Procedure (Schedule 2) for claims under SGD 1m, promising speed where it matters most.   

Appendix V, Article 1 – the Expedited Procedure threshold rises from USD 3m to USD 4m, reflecting the realities of modern claims.  Whilst the ICC is aligned with a number of other institutions in relation to offering an expedited procedure, the applicable thresholds vary considerably - SIAC’s threshold is SGD 10m (approx. USD 7.7m) and DIAC’s is AED 1m (approx. USD 300k). 

Appendix IV, Article 7 - Emergency Arbitration ("EA") gets sharper.  The ICC, a pioneer in EA alongside others such as the SCC (who introduced EA in 2010), now requires the ICC Court President to be “satisfied…that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist.”  This change hints at jurisdictional challenges that can stall EA proceedings, ensuring the process remains robust and effective. 

Raising the bar on confidentiality and disclosure 

Article 12 - confidentiality as binding on the arbitrator is now explicit, imposing a direct obligation on arbitrators for the first time.  However, party confidentiality remains subject to the seat or agreement, unlike LCIA (Art 30) and SIAC (Rule 59) which provide for party confidentiality by default. 

Article 12 - arbitrator disclosure rules are enhanced.  Any doubt about disclosure is resolved in favour of transparency, and disclosure alone does not prove lack of independence or impartiality.  Parties must also now submit lists of relevant persons and entities for conflict checks, supporting a more rigorous and proactive approach.  The rules also extend independence and impartiality obligations to tribunal secretaries. 

In summary, the new ICC Rules deliver a more agile, efficient, and transparent arbitral framework.  In so doing, the ICC is aiming to raise standards and to reinforce the ICC’s leadership in global arbitration.