Page Contents
Key contacts
Related areas
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has issued its revised 2026 Rules of Arbitration (the 2026 Rules), which came into force on 1 June 2026 and now apply to arbitrations initiated on or after that date unless otherwise agreed.
The revisions reflect a continued focus on efficiency, flexibility and modern case management. While certain changes, notably the removal of the Terms of Reference (ToR), appear significant at a structural level, the 2026 Rules are better understood as a targeted recalibration of existing practice rather than a wholesale transformation of ICC arbitration.
Background
The 2026 Rules follow consultation with the international arbitral community and reflect sustained user focus on cost, efficiency and procedural flexibility. The revisions also arise against the backdrop of increasing competition between arbitral institutions (including developments such as the SIAC Rules (January 2025)), many of which have introduced expedited procedures and summary disposal mechanisms.
The reforms place particular emphasis on streamlining early-stage procedure and enhancing the procedural toolkit available to tribunals, reflecting both user demand for efficiency and broader convergence across institutional rules. This update focuses on the principal procedural changes with practical implications.
Early-stage procedure: From ToR to Case Management Conference (CMC)
Perhaps the most consequential structural change in the 2026 Rules is the removal of the ToR as a mandatory procedural step and the corresponding shift toward tribunal-led case management.
The ToR was a distinctive feature of the ICC Rules, constituting a formally established procedural framework, prepared by the arbitral tribunal and signed by the parties and the tribunal (or approved by the ICC Court in default), defining the scope of the dispute, and identifying the issues to be determined. It operated as a binding procedural charter, delimiting the tribunal’s jurisdiction and restricting the introduction of new claims absent permission.
Its removal reflects practical experience. Under the Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP), where ToR are optional, the ICC reports that fewer than 25 out of 1,000 cases adopted them.
The 2026 Rules do not replicate the formality or juridical function of the ToR through an equivalent mechanism. Instead, it’s functions are distributed across:
In practical terms, the CMC and ensuing procedural orders perform much of the case management function previously associated with the ToR, including establishing the procedural timetable and structuring the progression of the arbitration.
The critical distinction, however, lies in form and status. Unlike the ToR, there is no requirement for a single consolidated document defining the scope of the dispute, no requirement for a signed or agreed procedural framework and no equivalent institutional approval at the outset. Procedural Order No. 1 is therefore a tribunal direction rather than a jointly agreed or institutionally endorsed framework document. The practical effect is not simply the removal of a procedural step, but a broader shift from a formally constituted procedural charter agreed (or approved) to a more flexible, tribunal-driven framework. While this may have limited impact in well-run arbitrations, the absence of a single document crystallising the scope of the dispute may allow for greater procedural fluidity, particularly in relation to the evolution of claims and the tribunal’s ongoing control of the proceedings.
The removal of the ToR also has implications for the timing of awards. Under the 2021 Rules, the six-month period for rendering the final award ran from the signature or approval of the ToR. Under the 2026 Rules, the linkage falls away, with timing instead determined by the ICC Court, having regard to the procedural timetable and any reasoned request from the tribunal. While conceptually significant, that is unlikely to materially affect most cases, as the six-month period was frequently extended.
The change therefore represents a shift toward case-specific management of the arbitral timetable, consistent with the broader move away from fixed procedural landmarks.
Early determination
Article 30 of the 2026 Rules introduces an express mechanism for early determination, permitting a party to seek dismissal of claims or defences that are “manifestly without merit” or outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
This brings the ICC into closer alignment with other major institutions that have adopted similar summary disposal procedures. In practice, such applications are used sparingly and succeed only in a limited number of cases, reflecting the intentionally high threshold.
Although tribunals have long exercised comparable powers under their inherent jurisdiction, codification is a meaningful development. It is likely to encourage more disciplined and strategic use, particularly in disputes involving discrete legal issues (such as limitation) or clearly unsustainable positions. However, in complex or fact-intensive disputes, tribunals are likely to remain cautious, given due process considerations and the need for a developed evidentiary record.
Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedures (HEAP)
The HEAP are a new opt-in mechanism requiring a final award within three months of the initial CMC, with scope for documents-only determination and power to limit document production and submissions.
Suitability for HEAP is determined on complexity rather than value. HEAP is most appropriate for disputes involving a simple factual matrix or discrete issues capable of rapid determination. It is best understood as a specialised procedural option, rather than a development that will materially reshape mainstream ICC arbitration practice.
Emergency arbitration expanded
The 2026 Rules expand the scope of emergency arbitration, including by permitting applications against any party bound by the arbitration agreement, as well as its signatories and their successors, and by expressly providing for preliminary orders, including on an ex parte basis to prevent a party from frustrating the purpose of the application.
While this expands the emergency arbitrator’s powers, its practical effect remains closely tied to enforceability at the national court level. Issues of jurisdiction, due process and recognition may limit reliance in practice.
Arbitrator disclosure / confidentiality obligation
The 2026 Rules strengthen disclosure obligations by largely codifying principles.
Article 12(2) confirms that doubts should be resolved in favour of disclosure, while Article 12(4) clarifies that disclosure does not, of itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality. Additionally, Article 12(5) requires parties to identify relevant persons and entities for disclosure, with reasons.
Article 12(8) introduces an express confidentiality obligation, requiring arbitrators to keep all matters confidential subject to limited exceptions.
Summary
The 2026 Rules represent a measured evolution of the ICC framework, aimed at improving efficiency and flexibility without sacrificing safeguards. Although changes such as the removal of the ToR are structurally significant, their practical effect is likely to be incremental. The 2026 Rules are best understood as a redistribution of existing functions, placing greater weight on early pleadings, the CMC and procedural orders. Ultimately, the significance of the 2026 Rules will depend less on the amendments themselves than on how they are applied in practice, reflecting a framework in which the centre of gravity has already shifted toward tribunal-led case management.
With an eye on the construction industry, the 2026 Rules come at a time when the Irish Government is considering proposals to incorporate institutional arbitration into public works contracts, with the ICC Rules identified as the proposed framework for such arbitrations within the existing tiered dispute resolution framework. At the time of writing, however, those proposals remain under consideration. The concerns driving the Irish reforms to the suite of Irish public works contracts, such as cost, delay and inefficiency in dispute resolution, are precisely those the 2026 Rules are aimed at addressing.
For further information in relation to this topic or any related matter, please contact Sarah Murphy, Partner, Clare Cashin, Partner, Aisling Vaughan, Senior Associate, Megan Fanning, Solicitor, or your usual contact on the Disputes or Construction & Engineering teams.
Date published: 16 June 2026
