The current geopolitical situation and economic uncertainty have made international dispute resolution more relevant than ever. From supply chain disruptions to force majeure claims, businesses across the globe are increasingly confronted with cross-border disputes. To resolve such disputes fast and effectively, international arbitration is often the mechanism of choice.
At the forefront of international arbitration stands the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC"), one of the world's leading arbitral institutions. The ICC International Court of Arbitration registers approximately one thousand new cases each year, involving parties from all over the world and a wide range of industries.
To meet the growing demand for efficient dispute resolution and keep pace with technological developments, the ICC has revised its arbitration rules, effective from 1 June 2026. The ICC Rules 2026 introduce new procedures and improvements to existing provisions, with a focus on streamlining proceedings and enhancing effective case management.
This article provides a concise overview of the most significant changes introduced in the ICC Rules 2026.
Expedited procedure by default for disputes up to USD 4 million
The Expedited Procedure Provisions ("EPP") apply either by party agreement or by default depending on the date of the arbitration agreement and the amount in dispute. Under the ICC Rules 2021, for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 March 2017 and before 1 January 2021, the threshold was set at USD 2 million, while for agreements concluded on or after 1 January 2021 and before 1 June 2026, it was set at USD 3 million. The ICC Rules 2026 raise this threshold to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. Thus, a larger share of ICC cases will be subject to the EPP by default – in fact, a significant share of the ICC's total case load will be subject to the EPP given that the median amount in dispute for ICC cases is approximately USD 5 million.
The EPP contain a number of provisions designed to provide time and cost-savings compared to the regular ICC arbitration process. One important provision is that, unless the parties agree otherwise or the Court so decides, EPP cases are decided by a sole arbitrator. Further, the arbitrator and administration fees are reduced. The six-month deadline for the final award to be rendered after the Case Management Conference ("CMC") (which as discussed below has been abolished for regular cases in the ICC Rules 2026) means that EPP awards should be rendered faster than awards in regular proceedings. The tribunal may dispense with a hearing and decide the case on the papers, but this is optional and tribunals are unlikely to exercise this discretion where the facts are complex or witness credibility is at issue. The tribunal may also limit or dispense with document production.
These provisions may be welcome or not, depending on the importance of the contract, complexity of the dispute, and other factors. In light of the new monetary threshold, companies and law firms may need to assess for new contracts providing for ICC arbitration, whether an opt-out from the EPP for disputes below USD 4 million (or an opt-in for disputes over that amount) is advisable.
New highly expedited procedure
In addition to the revised EPP, the new rules introduce the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions ("HEAP") as an entirely new form of fast-track procedure. Under the HEAP, a final award by a sole arbitrator must be rendered within three months from the date of the initial CMC.
The procedural framework is tailored to the compressed timeline of three months. A CMC must be held within seven-days after the sole arbitrator receives the file. The arbitrator has broad discretion in determining the scope of the procedure, including document production, additional written submissions, and written witness evidence. After consultation with the parties, the arbitrator is entitled to decide without a hearing.
The application of the HEAP is not implied from an agreement to apply the ICC Rules (such as the standard ICC arbitration clause) and requires the specific consent of the parties. Further, the parties may opt out of the HEAP by agreement at any time during the process; similarly, the ICC Court, upon the request of the arbitral tribunal, of a party, or even on its own motion, can decide at any point during the proceedings that the HEAP should no longer apply.
One of the main advantages of the HEAP is that parties obtain a final and binding award enforceable under the New York Convention. Thus, unlike a Dispute Adjudication Board, the HEAP combines speed with finality and enforceability. This makes the HEAP a particularly attractive option for time-sensitive disputes, where project delays can cause significant financial harm. At the same time, the compressed timeline places significant demands on all participants in the process – parties, arbitrator, counsel and witnesses. Both the capacity and industry expertise to navigate complex disputes in a fast-track setting will be essential.
This major innovation of the ICC Rules is a meaningful response to the oft-heard criticism that arbitration is too long and expensive. It remains to be seen whether, and if so, how quickly parties will embrace this new mechanism and opt in to it. Much will depend on whether the HEAP proves capable of delivering faster and more effective proceedings without compromising the quality of the decisions.
New early determination
The ICC Rules 2026 introduce the concept of "early determination", which permits any party to apply to the tribunal for the expeditious determination of one or more claims or defences on the grounds that they are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. The tribunal has broad discretion to decide whether to allow the application to proceed. If the application is allowed, the tribunal must adopt appropriate procedural measures after consulting the parties.
This mechanism, arguably already within tribunals' powers, but now explicit in the rules, has the potential to significantly enhance procedural efficiency: claims or defences that are clearly unfounded or fall outside the tribunal's jurisdiction can be disposed of early, thereby narrowing the scope of the proceedings and reducing both duration and costs. On the other hand, such applications, if ultimately unsuccessful, may add additional time and costs, depending on how tribunals use their discretion in structuring the process. Further, in certain jurisdictions, losing parties may be able to seek annulment, or resist recognition and enforcement, of awards based on lack of due process arguments. Overall, if applied judiciously, early determination may well become a valuable tool for combatting dilatory tactics and frivolous claims.
Case management conference is given more importance, including replacing the terms of reference as the new procedural milestone
Under the ICC Rules 2021 and all prior versions of the ICC Rules, the tribunal was required to draw up Terms of Reference ("ToR") – a document defining the scope of the arbitration, including the parties' respective claims and the issues to be determined. After a yearslong debate over whether the ToR should be abolished, with proponents of the change arguing that ToR are unnecessary and opponents arguing that they are a legal requirement and/or serve a useful purpose in certain domestic jurisdictions, the ICC has finally taken the step of abolishing the ToR requirement, while maintaining tribunals' discretion to issue them should they deem it useful.
With the removal of the ToR as a mandatory procedural milestone, the CMC has become the new cut-off date for the unilateral introduction of new claims. Under Art. 25 of the ICC Rules 2026, no new claims may be raised after the CMC without the tribunal's authorization. Counsel should therefore ensure that all potential claims are identified and comprehensively assessed prior to the CMC to avoid the risk of their permanent exclusion from the arbitration.
In addition, the ICC Rules 2026 expressly empower the tribunal to conduct further CMCs at any stage of the proceedings to foster the efficient conduct of the arbitration. Without naming it, this introduces the concept of so-called "midstream CMCs". Midstream CMCs are held after the first exchange of submissions to reassess the procedural timetable, address emerging issues or adapt the proceedings to changed circumstances. They are increasingly embraced as a tool to course-correct, streamline remaining procedural steps and ensure that time and costs are managed effectively.
Hybrid hearings without party consent
The ICC Rules 2026 grant tribunals broad discretion to conduct hearings not only in person or fully remotely (by videoconference, teleconference or other form of electronic communication), but also in hybrid form. This express discretion to conduct hearings in hybrid form, including without the parties' consent, as long as they are consulted, is new.
Additional changes with practical impact
Beyond the major reforms outlined above, the ICC Rules 2026 introduce a number of additional changes that, while more limited in scope, carry significant practical implications.
First, the ICC Rules 2026 provide for new disclosure-related obligations for the parties. At the time of filing their Request or other initial submissions, each party must submit to the Secretariat a list of persons and entities that prospective arbitrators should consider for disclosure purposes, together with the reasons therefor. This requirement shifts part of the burden of identifying potential conflicts of interest to the parties.
Second, Art. 34 of the ICC Rules 2026 introduces a revised framework for establishing the time limit for rendering the final award. Under the new provision, the President of the Court fixes and, when necessary, extends, the time limit, taking into account the procedural timetable established by the tribunal as part of the initial CMC or a reasoned request from the tribunal. This replaces the previous fixed six-month deadline, which in practice led to routine extensions. The present framework allows for establishing a realistic deadline for each particular case at its outset, taking into account the preferences of the parties and the tribunal as reflected in the procedural timetable.
Third, Art. 44 of the ICC Rules 2026 formally codifies the role of tribunal secretaries in ICC arbitration by incorporating previous guidance notes on their use in the rules. This is a reflection of the increasing use of tribunal secretaries in international arbitration and acceptance of the useful role they can play, provided clear safeguards are established to preserve the integrity of the decision-making process.
Fourth, the ICC Rules 2026 expressly codify in Art. 12 (8) for the first time a confidentiality obligation for the tribunal (as well as tribunal secretaries).
Conclusion
The ICC Rules 2026 do not bring seismic change, but rather contain careful incremental changes based on experience since the adoption of the ICC Rules 2021 with the objective of allowing tribunals to resolve time-sensitive disputes more efficiently than before, deploy modern case management techniques to reduce time and costs, and align arbitral proceedings with today's technological capabilities.
The authors are Partners with White & Case and ICC Court Members. This article reflects their personal views.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2026 White & Case LLP
