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. These new ICC Rules take inspiration from some of the other institutional rules, and this article highlights both significant changes in the new ICC Rules as well as the institutional rules that may have inspired some of these changes.
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 The ICC’s long-standing requirement for ToR, dating back to the 1920s, has been replaced by a more agile approach.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 who add weight to the importance of ensuring that arbitrations are launched efficiently and quickly handed over to the tribunal, setting clear parametres and a procedural timetable early on. In particular, the DIS Rules set out that a CMC should take place within 21 days of tribunal constitution (Art 27.2). Similalrly, the SIAC Rules provide for a CMC as soon as practicable (Rule 32).
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. It also aligns with a similar long-standing provision in the LCIA Rules which allows a tribunal to summarily dismiss a claim, defence, counterclaim, or cross-claim that is manifestly without merit, inadmissible, or manifestly outside the tribunal's jurisdiction (Art 22.2(viii)). Other rules also allow for a similar approach which is necessary to allow efficiency in arbitration. The SCC Rules empower a tribunal to decide one or more issues of fact or law via an expedited summary procedure or summary judgment, saving time and cost by avoiding unnecessary procedural steps while upholding due process (Art 39). Lastly, the SAKIG Rules allow a party to request an early decision on clearly unmeritorious claims, unmeritorious defenses, or manifestly well-founded issues (section 29). 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 which other institutions have already expressly endorsed.
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. Certain institutions have been reluctant to expressly introduce such a procedure. However, in its latest revision, the SIAC introduced its Streamlined Procedure (Schedule 2) for claims under SGD 1m, promising speed where it matters most. The SIAC process mandates a sole arbitrator, document-only submissions without production or witness evidence by default, a final award within 3 months.
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 – the SIAC’s threshold is SGD 10m (approx. USD 7.7m) where the DIAC’s is AED 1m (approx. USD 300k). Greater alignment on this from arbitral institutions would be a welcome development.
Appendix IV, Article 7 - Emergency Arbitration ("EA") gets sharper. The ICC, a pioneer in EA alongside others such as the SCC Rules (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. The ICC Rules have, however, adopted a slightly different approach to other rules but indicating that party confidentiality remains subject to the seat or agreement, unlike the LCIA Rules (Art 30) and the SIAC Rules (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 this respect, the ICC Rules offer express clarity whether other rules are not so express. It is hoped that, in time, other institutional rules will follow suit.
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 whilst also taking inspiration from other institutional rules.
