News & Publications
ICC Arbitration Rules 2026: Key Changes at a Glance
In force as of 1 June 2026 · Applies to all arbitrations commenced on or after that date
Terms of Reference (“ToR”) abolished
Mandatory ToR removed. The initial Case Management Conference (CMC) now serves as the primary procedural milestone and the cut-off for new claims and defences. ToR may still be used where the tribunal considers them useful.
PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY
This change builds on the successful experience of the Expedited Procedure, where Terms of Reference are not required, and eliminates an additional, and sometimes time-consuming, procedural step. Parties must now finalise their claims and relief sought before the CMC and can no longer rely on the ToR stage to refine or expand them. The tribunal’s first procedural order will serve as the roadmap for the proceedings.
Early determination codified
Article 30 formalises the early dismissal of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The mechanism is not entirely new: a substantially similar provision appeared in the 2021 ICC Note on the Conduct of Arbitration (paras. 109–114).
PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY
The key development is the elevation of early determination from soft guidance to a binding rule, enhancing its authority and predictability. The removal of the requirement to apply “as promptly as possible” allows parties to seek early determination at any stage of the proceedings. The rule also confirms the tribunal’s discretion to decide whether an application should proceed, which may be useful where bifurcation of jurisdiction, imitation, liability, or quantum issues is preferable to outright dismissal.
Emergency arbitration: ex parte relief now available
Appendix IV introduces a Preliminary Order allowing ex parte interim relief to prevent frustration of an emergency application, such as asset dissipation or destruction of evidence. The order may be granted without prior notice to the opposing party. The procedure, previously limited to signatories to the arbitration agreement and their successors, has now been extended to any party for which the President is satisfied, based on the information contained in the Application, that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist.
PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY
This change is significant because it addresses situations where prior notice to the opposing party could defeat the purpose of the requested relief. That said, the mechanism is structured as an order rather than an award. This approach is understandable given the due process concerns associated with granting relief without notice to the opposing party. However, it may also mean that such orders have a more limited coercive effect than court orders. In addition, the expansion of the Emergency Arbitrator provisions may have important implications in scenarios where access to urgent relief was previously uncertain, such as disputes involving non-signatory group companies or assignments.
Expedited procedure: raised threshold
Expedited Procedure threshold rises from USD 3M to USD 4M for arbitration agreements executed on or after 1 June 2026.
PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY
Parties remain free to opt into the Expedited Procedure regardless of the amount in dispute, or to opt out if they consider that it may not be suitable.
Highly Expedited Arbitration
The revised Rules introduce a new Highly Expedited Arbitration procedure (Article 33 and Appendix VI), available only by party agreement. A sole arbitrator decides the dispute, the Statement of Claim must accompany the Request for Arbitration, and the award must be issued within three months of the initial case management conference. The tribunal may proceed on a documents-only basis, without hearings or witness/expert evidence. Parties may agree to a non-reasoned award (subject to the lex arbitri), while joinder and consolidation are excluded.
PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY
This new procedure is likely to provide an attractive option for lower-value disputes where speed is a priority. However, the fact that it can only be applied by agreement of the parties may limit its practical use. Given that parties often find it difficult to reach agreement on procedural matters once a dispute has arisen, it would be prudent to include this mechanism in the arbitration clause from the outset.
New disclosure and conflict-check requirements
Two principles from the 2021 ICC Note on the Conduct of Arbitration have now been incorporated directly into the Rules. Article 12(2) provides that doubts as to whether a circumstance should be disclosed should be resolved in favour of disclosure, while Article 12(4) confirms that disclosure, in and of itself, does not imply a lack of independence or impartiality. In addition, parties are now required to submit a list of relevant persons and entities for the arbitrators’ conflict checks together with the Request, Answer or other relevant filing (Article 12(5)).
PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY
The disclosure amendments are designed to encourage fuller disclosure at the appointment stage while reducing challenges based solely on disclosed circumstances. Responsibility for identifying related entities now rests with the parties rather than the ICC Secretariat, enhancing conflict checks and reducing the risk of late-stage challenges.
Confidentiality codified for arbitrators
Article 12(8) introduces an express confidentiality obligation for arbitrators. No corresponding obligation is imposed on the parties.
PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY
This appears to be a deliberate choice, reflecting a preference for tailored confidentiality arrangements over a one-size-fits-all rule. Parties requiring confidentiality protection should therefore consider including an express confidentiality provision in their dispute resolution clause.
Award deadline; electronic communications
The 2026 Rules remove the previous six-month deadline for rendering a final award, which was frequently extended in practice (Article 34). Instead, the President will set the deadline, taking into account the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the tribunal. Electronic communication is now the default method for correspondence with the Secretariat and for filing Requests, Answers, and Requests for Joinder (Articles 3(1) and 3(2)).
PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY
The removal of the six-month deadline reflects the reality of non-expedited ICC arbitrations and eliminates the need for routine extension requests. The move to electronic communication likewise codifies existing practice, but parties and counsel should ensure that their designated electronic addresses are accurate and monitored. Missed communications, particularly in relation to Requests, Answers, and Requests for Joinder, may have significant procedural consequences.
The above information reflects the general assessments of YılmazÜlker Attorney Partnership ("YılmazÜlker") regarding the subject matter and does not constitute legal opinion or legal consultancy services. Before taking any action based on the matters stated herein, it is recommended to seek professional legal advice by considering the specific circumstances of the case. YılmazÜlker shall not be held liable for any consequences arising from or in connection with the content of this document.
#YilmazUlker #ICC #Arbitration #Publication