The ICC’s 2026 Arbitration Rules: An Early Preview of the Changes (Part 1)

Advisory

The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has announced that its revised 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules (the Rules) will enter into force on June 1, 2026. Per the ICC, the amendments are aimed at enhancing transparency and efficiency in ICC proceedings, strengthening confidence in the arbitral process, and codifying several practices that have already developed under existing ICC case administration.

In advance of the formal release of the revised Rules, the ICC is publishing a series of preview articles highlighting key forthcoming amendments and additions. This article summarizes the first set of early insights from the ICC and highlights the practical implications the changes may have for parties, counsel, and arbitrators involved in ICC arbitrations.

Part 1: Arbitrator Disclosure

A fundamental principle of arbitration is the independence and impartiality of the neutral, and the current ICC Rules include enhanced provisions related to an arbitrator’s obligations concerning disclosure of potential conflicts. The revised Rules elevate this requirement and codify two of the ICC Court of Arbitration’s long-standing expectations and practice: (1) that arbitrators should err on the side of transparency when considering potential disclosures, and (2) the mere fact of a disclosure should not call an arbitrator’s independence or impartiality into question.

Specifically, the revised Rules will state: “doubts the prospective arbitrator may have about whether to make a disclosure shall be resolved in favour of disclosure” (Article 12(2)) and “disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality.” (Article 12(4)).

Beyond codifying existing expectations of arbitrators, parties to ICC disputes will now be required, at the outset of the proceedings, to provide a list of persons and entities that prospective arbitrators should consider when assessing potential conflicts, together with the reasons such persons or entities may be relevant. The new rule will state:

To assist prospective arbitrators and arbitrators in complying with their disclosure obligations, at the time of filing their respective Request, Answer, Request for Joinder, Answer to a Request for Joinder or request for an extension of time for submitting an Answer under Article 6(2), each party must submit to the Secretariat a list of persons and entities which they believe the prospective arbitrators and arbitrators should consider and the reasons thereof. (Article 12(5))

These updates should encourage broader and earlier disclosures by arbitrators and more proactive conflict identification by parties. Taken together, these changes may have the effect of increasing the number of arbitrator challenges made by parties, though there is no reason to expect that there will be a parallel increase in successful challenges. And greater disclosure at the outset of proceedings may also serve to further insulate ICC awards from post-award judicial challenges on arbitrator partiality grounds.

More practically, the changes to the rules will raise the burden on parties and arbitrators to meet the ICC’s disclosure requirements. Companies frequently engaged in ICC arbitration should consider proactively implementing internal procedures to identify relevant affiliates, stakeholders, and funding arrangements to facilitate compliance with the new requirements and reduce the risk of later-stage conflict-related issues.

Part 2: Moving Beyond Mandatory Terms of Reference

One of the most significant procedural changes in the 2026 Rules is the removal of mandatory Terms of Reference in standard ICC arbitrations, though tribunals retain discretion to use them as a case management tool. Historically, Terms of Reference have been a distinctive feature of ICC arbitration, serving at the outset of a dispute to formally confirm the parties’ consent to arbitrate, record key procedural agreements, and define the scope of the dispute. Successive revisions have steadily reduced their formality, and the ICC reports that, in the more than 1,000 cases administered since 2017 under the Expedited Procedure Provisions — under which the Terms of Reference were already optional — fewer than 25 tribunals have elected to draw them up.

With Terms of Reference no longer mandatory, the initial Case Management Conference (CMC) becomes the central procedural milestone for structuring the proceedings. The ICC has indicated that tribunals may wish to use Procedural Order No. 1 to record matters previously included in the Terms of Reference, such as the identification of the parties, confirmation of jurisdiction, and the applicable law. Importantly, the initial CMC also becomes the cut-off for introducing new claims as a matter of right. If a party wishes to introduce new claims after the initial CMC, they must receive authorization from the tribunal, which will consider the nature of the new claims, the stage of the proceedings, any cost implications, and any other relevant circumstances.

The 2026 Rules also revise the time limit for rendering the final award. The longstanding default of six months from the last signature of the Terms of Reference is replaced by a tailored approach under Article 34, pursuant to which the President of the ICC Court fixes, and may extend, the time limit based on the procedural timetable created during the initial CMC or a reasoned request from the tribunal.

The removal of the ICC’s distinctive requirement of a Terms of Reference, as well as the changes to the fixing of a final award deadline, reflects a broader shift in the revised ICC Rules toward increased procedural flexibility. While the Terms of Reference can serve an important function as a formal undertaking among the parties and tribunal regarding the scope and conduct of the dispute, for smaller or faster-moving disputes, they also could impose unneeded time and costs on all sides of the dispute. In the same vein, the newly flexible award time limit reflects the variable complexity of ICC disputes and the corresponding needs of the parties; in practice, the six-month time limit was frequently extended at the request of the parties and/or the tribunal. The change to the rules should lighten the administrative load associated with the award deadline by allowing for the fixing of a realistic deadline, with input by the parties and tribunal, at the outset.

Part 3: Expedited Procedure Provisions and Emergency Arbitration

Expanding the scope of cases eligible for expedited procedures, the ICC announced an increase to the monetary threshold for automatic application of the expedited procedure from $3 million to $4 million. This increase to the threshold should expand the number of disputes eligible for expedited procedures, especially considering the ICC states that in 2025, over 40% of their cases did not exceed $4 million.

Perhaps even more significantly, the ICC has also previewed revisions relating to emergency arbitration and case management aimed at facilitating more efficient proceedings in urgent disputes. The new rules will allow emergency proceedings to be initiated not only against signatories to an arbitration agreement and their successors, as under the existing rules, but also against “any party for which the President is satisfied, based on information in the Application, that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist.” The ICC clarified that because of this rule, the President of the ICC Court “is empowered to take a decision … based on the information submitted as part of the file, as to whether an arbitration agreement may bind the party or parties.”

In addition, the new Emergency Arbitration Provisions “acknowledge preliminary orders and provide that, at any stage of emergency arbitrator proceedings, a party may request a preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the application.”

The expansion of expedited proceedings may place parties in eligible disputes under greater pressure to present their cases more efficiently and at an earlier stage of proceedings. In drafting and negotiating arbitration clauses, parties should consider the trade-offs inherent in such procedures and whether to opt out of them altogether. In doing so, parties should weigh the greater speed, cost control, and access to urgent relief under the expedited procedures against their potential downsides, including the requirement of a sole arbitrator (and concordant loss of the ability to nominate one’s own arbitrator) and diminished procedural opportunities to develop evidence and present one’s case.

Meanwhile, the changes to emergency arbitration could significantly enhance its importance. The prima facie standard to be deployed in determining whether a respondent is bound by the arbitration agreement will allow emergency relief to be sought and ordered against a wider range of relevant parties, and emergency arbitrators have, at the same time, been granted greater express authority to make additional orders to preserve the status quo. Assuming the enforceability of these expanded emergency procedures, the ICC’s rule changes provide parties in need of urgent relief through arbitration a substantially expanded toolkit for obtaining it.

* * *

Arnold & Porter has significant experience serving as counsel in ICC disputes, as well as a number of partners who have served as an arbitrator and in leadership roles at the ICC. Should you face a dispute involving ICC proceedings, or are evaluating the inclusion of an ICC dispute-resolution clause in an agreement, Arnold & Porter can provide expert advice drawing on its experience and in-depth knowledge of the ICC and international commercial arbitration practice more generally.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Advisory is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.