The ICC’s 2026 Arbitration Rules: An Early Preview of the Changes (Part 2)

The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has announced its revised 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules (the Rules), which entered 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.

The ICC published a series of preview articles highlighting key amendments and additions to the Rules in the lead up to their launch, and the Rules have now been published in their entirety. Part 1 of our Advisory summarized the first set of early insights from the ICC and highlighted the implications for ICC arbitration practice. This article, Part 2, reviews the other significant changes made in the Rules and the practical effects these changes may have for parties, counsel, and arbitrators engaged in disputes at the ICC.

Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions

Perhaps the most notable procedural innovation in the 2026 Rules is the introduction of an entirely new opt-in procedural track for parties seeking a streamlined and exceptionally swift resolution of their dispute: the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP). HEAP is distinct from the ICC’s already existing Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP), both in how these provisions can be applied to a particular dispute and in the even-more-streamlined procedures they contemplate.

Unlike the Expedited Procedure Provisions, HEAP cannot be applied by the ICC by default based on the amount in dispute. Rather, parties must expressly opt in to their application regardless of the monetary value of the claims. The ICC has stated that HEAP is appropriate for disputes of any size, provided the issues are sufficiently discrete and the parties share an interest in swift resolution. To opt in, parties may either incorporate HEAP in the arbitration agreement itself (a model HEAP clause is included in the 2026 Rules) or by agreement after a dispute has already arisen.

The streamlined HEAP procedures call for adjudication by a sole arbitrator, which the parties have 20 days to nominate jointly; if they cannot agree within that period, the ICC Court directly appoints the arbitrator. Joinder and consolidation are not available in HEAP proceedings.

The time limit for the sole arbitrator to render the award is three months from the initial case management conference, and the procedures require that conference to take place within seven days of the sole arbitrator’s receipt of the case file — a significant compression from the 30-day window applicable in standard ICC proceedings, and even from the 15 days under the Expedited Procedure Provisions. The three-month award time limit includes ICC Court scrutiny and notification of the award to the parties.

The ICC has emphasized, however, that HEAP should be understood as a distinct procedural track and not as standard ICC arbitration on a compressed timeline. The HEAP procedure is structured to require parties to frontload the presentation of their case and evidence, requiring the Statement of Claim to be filed with the Request for Arbitration, and a Statement of Defence to be filed with the Answer. The sole arbitrator has broad discretion to adopt procedural measures necessary to render the award within the time limit, which may include restrictions on further submissions and written witness statements, the exclusion of document production, and the determination of the dispute without a hearing.

One of HEAP’s most novel features is the parties’ ability to agree to an award without reasons, a marked departure from standard ICC practice. HEAP also adopts the same cost scale as the Expedited Procedure Provisions, with reduced tribunal fees.

HEAP represents a genuine and significant expansion of the ICC’s procedural offerings, providing parties with a maximally streamlined option to resolve their dispute through arbitral procedures. Where time is of the essence, HEAP could serve as a powerful tool for parties to obtain meaningful and enforceable resolution of commercial disputes.

At the same time, such highly expedited and streamlined arbitral procedures raise distinct considerations that parties should carefully evaluate. Parties opting in at the contract-drafting stage must consider whether the disputes likely to arise under the agreement are appropriate for HEAP’s truncated procedure and whether the frontloaded structure is feasible given the kinds of evidence that may need to be developed. To this end, parties may consider applying HEAP only to certain types or sizes of disputes, though inclusion of such carveouts bring separate risks should the parties disagree on their boundaries.

Moreover, parties contemplating an award without reasons should pay particular attention to enforcement risk: although the ICC notes that only a “small number” of jurisdictions treat the absence of reasons as a ground for set-aside or refusal of enforcement, that population is not negligible and may include jurisdictions of practical importance to the parties in any given case. Counsel advising on the choice between HEAP, the EPP, and standard ICC arbitration will need to weigh these considerations carefully, particularly in circumstances where there may be uncertainty around the seat of arbitration or the jurisdictions in which enforcement of an award would occur.

Early Determination

Another significant step taken by the ICC in the 2026 Rules is formal codification of an early-determination procedure. Though the possibility of early determination has existed in ICC practice since 2017 — through a reference to early determination contained in the ICC’s Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration — the ICC has now removed any remaining doubt about a tribunal’s authority to dispose of claims or defenses at an early stage of the proceedings and provided further guidance on how it may do so. The new rule, Article 30, states that:

1. Any party may apply to the arbitral tribunal for the early determination of one or more claims or defences on the grounds that:
   a. such claims or defences are manifestly without merit; or
   b. such claims or defences are manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. 
2. The arbitral tribunal shall determine in its discretion whether to allow the application to proceed. If the arbitral tribunal allows the application to proceed, it shall adopt the procedural measures it considers appropriate, after consulting the parties.

The structure of Article 30 reflects a two-step decision: the tribunal first decides whether the application should be entertained at all, taking into account the stage of the proceedings and the need to ensure time and cost efficiency, and only then proceeds to the merits of the application itself. The ICC indicates that, in practice, tribunals have most often permitted early determination where the issues presented are purely legal and require no, or very limited, evidence, or the essential legal elements of a claim have not been pleaded. Comparatively, tribunals have generally rejected applications where resolution would require substantial legal or factual analysis. The underlying premise of the procedure is that the claim or defense fails as a matter of law even if the underlying factual allegations are assumed to be true.

The ICC’s guidance regarding the new Article 30 provides that an early-determination decision may take the form of either a procedural order or an award, depending on its content. Decisions that finally dispose of claims will generally be expected to take the form of an award. This distinction has practical consequences: an award disposing of claims will be subject to ICC Court scrutiny (which the ICC indicates will typically occur within one week) and is, in turn, subject to enforcement and set-aside procedures in the relevant jurisdictions. Tribunals are expected to discuss the appropriate form of the decision with the parties in advance.

The codification of early determination should encourage more frequent use of the procedure and reduce disputes over the appropriateness and governing standards for early determination. While the substantive standard (“manifestly without merit” or “manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction”) remains demanding, and the procedure is unlikely to dispose of disputes that turn on contested facts or contractual interpretation, parties facing claims or defenses that appear deficient as a matter of law can now confidently plan on submitting an application under Article 30 at the earliest possible stage. The ICC’s formal codification of early determination, as well as its provision for such determinations potentially being made via a scrutinized award, should enhance the usefulness of this tool.

Other Revisions

Finally, the 2026 Rules also introduce several other modest revisions, many of which codify existing ICC practice or make targeted adjustments to specific procedural mechanics. The most notable of these are summarized below:

• Confidentiality. New Article 12(8) imposes an express confidentiality obligation on arbitrators with respect to all matters relating to the arbitration, subject to standard exceptions for information already in the public domain, party agreement, applicable law, and the protection of legal rights. The 2026 Rules do not impose a default confidentiality obligation on the parties themselves; as under the prior Rules, the extent to which the arbitration as a whole is confidential remains a matter for party agreement and/or the law applicable to the arbitration.
• Signature and notification of the award. New Article 38 permits the tribunal, after consulting with the parties, to sign the award electronically or in counterparts, and to request that the ICC Secretariat notify the award in either paper or electronic form. This change accommodates the now-widespread practitioner preference for electronic execution and delivery and should meaningfully reduce delays previously associated with circulating awards for wet-ink signatures across jurisdictions, while preserving flexibility in jurisdictions with stricter rules around award format and certification.
• Tribunal secretary. New Article 44 codifies current ICC practice on the appointment of tribunal secretaries, expressly requiring that secretaries satisfy the same independence and impartiality standards as arbitrators and sign a corresponding statement before appointment. The Rules also clarify that secretaries work under the tribunal’s direction and control without delegation of decision-making authority, and that direct fee arrangements between the tribunal and the parties for secretary services are prohibited; secretaries’ reasonable expenses may, however, be reimbursed under Appendix III.
• Fees and costs. The Schedule of Fees, including details of the fees and costs, is now incorporated directly into the 2026 Rules. Of note, the ICC has reduced administrative expenses for disputes under US$10 million. However, for the first time since 2010, the ICC has also introduced targeted upward adjustments for larger disputes, a development parties should factor into cost projections for high-value matters going forward.

Arnold & Porter has decades of experience serving as counsel in ICC disputes, as well as a number of partners who have served as arbitrators and in leadership roles at the ICC. For six years, above author and Practice Group Chair, Maria Chedid, served as one of the two U.S. members seated on the ICC Court of Arbitration. Please contact us if you face a dispute involving ICC proceedings, or if you are evaluating the inclusion of an ICC dispute-resolution clause in an agreement. We can provide expert representation drawing on our 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.