The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules: Key Changes and What They Mean in Practice

Introduction

The ICC International Court of Arbitration remains the world’s most preferred arbitral institution. Its revised Rules of Arbitration entered into force on 1 June 2026. The new Rules reshape the opening phase of ICC proceedings, introduce a highly expedited track, expressly empower tribunals to determine manifestly weak claims or defences at an early stage, broaden access to emergency relief and clarify arbitrator disclosure obligations.

As a rule, the 2026 Rules apply to arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2026, unless the parties agreed to use an earlier edition. The date of the arbitration agreement remains relevant to the automatic application of the Expedited Procedure and the Emergency Arbitrator Provisions, as explained below. 

This guide explains the key changes in plain terms, describes why each change was made, and identifies the practical steps that in-house counsel should consider. Where relevant, we highlight the specific implications for Ukrainian businesses and their international counterparts.

1. The end of mandatory Terms of Reference

1.1. What changed

For decades, standard ICC arbitration included a distinctive opening step: the tribunal had to draw up Terms of Reference (ToR). The ToR identified the parties and their claims and could include a list of issues to be decided. Under the 2021 Rules, the tribunal had 30 days from receipt of the file to sign and transmit the ToR to the ICC Court. Court approval was required only if a party refused to participate in preparing or signing the document. In practice, the deadline was often extended.

Under the 2026 Rules, ToR are no longer mandatory. A tribunal may still prepare them if they would help to manage the case. The initial Case Management Conference (CMC), which must normally take place within 30 days after the tribunal receives the file, now becomes the main procedural milestone at the outset. After that CMC, Article 25 prevents a party from introducing a new claim without the tribunal’s authorisation.

1.2. Why this change was made

The practical value of ToR had diminished. They often duplicated information already contained in the Request and Answer, while the time needed to negotiate and sign them delayed the first procedural timetable. Experience under the Expedited Procedure also showed that ICC cases could be managed effectively without mandatory ToR.  

1.3. What this means in practice

The change should shorten the opening phase, but it also makes early preparation more important. Claimants should articulate all claims in the Request, and respondents should identify any counterclaims in the Answer. A party seeking to add a claim after the initial CMC will need to address its nature, the stage of the case, the resulting costs and any other relevant circumstances.

Tribunals may record matters formerly covered by the ToR - such as the identity of the parties, agreed aspects of jurisdiction and the applicable law - in Procedural Order No. 1. The ICC Secretariat has indicated that it is preparing a model order, but the 2026 Rules do not make this form mandatory.

The abolition of the ToR affects not only the opening stages of a case but also its overall timetable. Under the previous Rules, the default six-month period for rendering the final award ran from the signing of the Terms of Reference and was frequently extended in practice. Article 34 now adopts a more flexible approach: the President of the ICC Court will set, and where necessary extend, the time limit for each case individually, taking into account the procedural timetable established at the CMC.

2. Early dismissal of weak claims — Article 30

2.1. What changed

Article 30 now expressly permits a party to seek early determination of one or more claims or defences that are “manifestly without merit” or “manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction”. Since 2017, the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals had recognised this power as part of effective case management. Its inclusion in the Rules removes any remaining doubt about the tribunal’s authority. Article 30 does not prescribe a filing deadline, although timing remains relevant to the tribunal’s discretion whether to allow an application to proceed.

An early determination can prevent an obviously untenable claim or defence from taking up the time and incurring the costs of a full evidentiary process. Codification should also empower tribunals to utilise this mechanism while preserving due process. The tribunal must consult the parties before establishing the procedure for an application that it permits to proceed.

2.2. What this means in practice

The threshold is deliberately high. A claim or defence must be clearly unsustainable; Article 30 cannot replace a full hearing where material facts are disputed or the legal analysis is complex. This mechanism is most likely to be helpful where a claim is clearly time-barred, falls outside the arbitration agreement, or lacks an essential legal element, even if the facts pleaded are assumed to be true.

Parties should also bear two important considerations in mind. First, the tribunal has an express gatekeeping discretion to decide whether to allow an application to proceed at all (Article 30(2)), which should filter out applications made for purely tactical reasons. Second, where an application fails, it may add cost and delay rather than reduce them. In practice, the procedure is likely to be most valuable when the weakness of a claim or defence is truly beyond serious debate.

3. A new ultra-fast track: the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP)

3.1. What changed

Article 33 of the 2026 Rules, together with Appendix VI introduces an entirely new procedure known as the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions, or HEAP. Its goal is to deliver a final, binding award within three months of the first case management conference. HEAP represents a separate procedural framework, with its own objectives, timelines, and case-management philosophy. Its main  features are:

• Opt-in only: HEAP only applies if both parties agree to use it. There is no automatic application and no minimum or maximum amount in dispute.
• Sole arbitrator: HEAP cases are decided by a sole arbitrator. Unless the parties agree on a longer period, they have 20 days from the respondent’s receipt of the Request and Statement of Claim to make a joint nomination; otherwise, the ICC Court appoints the arbitrator directly.
• Cases frontloaded: the claimant files its Statement of Claim with the Request. Within 20 days, the respondent must provide specified initial information and file its Answer and Statement of Defence within 30 days. Where possible, evidence should accompany these submissions. The deadlines in Article 2 of Appendix VI may only be extended by agreement of the parties.
• Fast timeline: the first CMC must take place within 7 days of the arbitrator receiving the file (compared with 30 days in a standard case). The final award must be issued within 3 months of the CMC, including the time for ICC Court review.
• Documents only: the arbitrator can decide the case on the documents, without a hearing. Submissions and document requests can be limited.
• Optional unreasoned award: the parties may agree that the award does not need to include reasons. This reduces the time needed to write the award. Before agreeing, parties should check the law of the likely enforcement jurisdictions: in some countries an award without reasons may face difficulties at the recognition and enforcement stage even where the parties consented to it.
• Lower fees: HEAP uses the same fee schedule as the Expedited Procedure, which is lower than the standard ICC scale.

For many commercial disputes — particularly those that are factually straightforward and commercially urgent — the standard ICC process, which often takes two to three years, is simply too slow. HEAP is ICC’s response to competition from other institutions, particularly SIAC’s Streamlined Procedure, and to user demand for a process that is fast but still produces an internationally enforceable award.

3.2. What this means in practice

HEAP aims to produce a final and binding award within three months after the initial CMC, but that deadline may be extended by the President of the ICC Court where necessary. The procedure is generally unsuitable for cases involving multiple parties, extensive disclosure, substantial witness or expert evidence, or complex jurisdictional issues. Joinder and consolidation are not permitted. The Court may, however, remove a case from HEAP if the procedure proves unsuitable and decide whether it should continue under the Expedited Procedure or the standard Rules.

For in-house counsel, the key decision is whether to include a HEAP clause at the contract-drafting stage. HEAP clauses make most sense for relationships likely to produce disputes that are commercially urgent and factually straightforward - for example, recurring commercial transactions, standard supply agreements, and purchase-price disputes.

Parties considering HEAP should also pay close attention to the drafting of the arbitration clause. Because the procedure applies only by agreement, an effective opt-in is essential. In practice, the safest course is to adopt the ICC model HEAP clause rather than bespoke wording. A poorly drafted opt-in provision can generate uncertainty over the procedure’s applicability and undermine the very efficiency gains that HEAP is intended to deliver.

3.3. Relevance for Ukrainian businesses

Ukraine’s reconstruction is likely to generate urgent disputes over unpaid invoices, defects, variations and purchase-price adjustments. Some will be document-driven and limited in scope. For those disputes, Ukrainian developers, contractors and international investors may wish to consider a HEAP clause. It can offer a route to an award within months, provided the dispute is unlikely to require extensive witness or expert evidence or complex procedural management.

That said, HEAP is unlikely to be appropriate for every reconstruction project. Large-scale construction contracts often involve multiple parties and interconnected contractual relationships. Because HEAP requires a sole arbitrator and does not permit joinder or consolidation, it is less suitable for structures involving employers, general contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers. In such cases, the standard ICC procedure, or the Expedited Procedure where applicable, is likely to provide a more workable framework.

The table below summarises how the four procedural tracks compare under the 2026 Rules:

4. The Expedited Procedure now covers disputes up to USD 4 million

4.1. What changed

The ICC has an existing fast-track procedure, the Expedited Procedure, which applies automatically to smaller disputes. Under the 2021 Rules, it applied to disputes up to USD 3 million. Under the 2026 Rules, for arbitration agreements signed on or after 1 June 2026, the threshold rises to USD 4 million (Article 1(3), Appendix V). The ICC Court may appoint a sole arbitrator despite a contrary provision in the arbitration agreement. The initial CMC must normally take place within 15 days after transmission of the file, and the final award is due within six months after that CMC, subject to extension by the President.

The applicable threshold depends on when the arbitration agreement was concluded:

• USD 2 million for agreements concluded from 1 March 2017 to 31 December 2020;
• USD 3 million for agreements concluded from 1 January 2021 to 31 May 2026;
• USD 4 million for agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026.

For arbitration agreements concluded before 1 March 2017, the Expedited Procedure does not apply at all.

The Expedited Procedure applies automatically unless the parties have opted out or the ICC Court determines that it is inappropriate in the circumstances. Parties may also opt in regardless of the amount in dispute. A contractual choice of three arbitrators does not, by itself, exclude the Expedited Procedure; parties wishing to preserve a three-member tribunal should use an express opt-out.

4.2. Why this change was made

More than 40% of all ICC cases filed in 2025 involved amounts below USD 4 million. Raising the threshold widens the reach of the fast track and brings more mid-size commercial disputes into a more efficient process. The track record supports the move: since 2017, the ICC has administered 1,034 cases under the Expedited Procedure, resulting in 591 awards.

4.3. What this means in practice

For agreements concluded from 1 June 2026, disputes between USD 3 million and USD 4 million now fall within the Expedited Procedure by default. This can reduce time and arbitrator fees, but the shorter timetable and likely appointment of a sole arbitrator may not suit a legally or factually complex dispute. Parties that require three arbitrators or extensive procedural steps should opt out expressly rather than rely on a clause providing for three arbitrators.

5. Stronger emergency arbitration: non-signatories and orders without notice

5.1. What changed

The 2026 Rules make two important changes to the Emergency Arbitration (EA) procedure.

First, emergency arbitration may now proceed against a non-signatory if the President of the ICC Court is satisfied, on the information in the application, that an arbitration agreement binding that party may exist (Article 1(2) of Appendix IV).  This is a preliminary assessment, not a final decision on jurisdiction: the emergency arbitrator decides jurisdiction for the requested measures. Any jurisdictional objections will ultimately be determined by the arbitral tribunal once constituted.

Second, the 2026 Rules for the first time expressly allow emergency arbitrators to issue preliminary orders without giving prior notice to the other party (Article 7, Appendix IV). These orders are intended to preserve the effectiveness of emergency relief in situations where advance notice could defeat its purpose, such as the dissipation of assets or destruction of evidence. The affected party must, however, be given an immediate opportunity to respond, and the emergency arbitrator can modify or cancel the order in light of that response.

There is also a change in the opposite direction. Article 1(3)(c) of Appendix IV broadens the categories of disputes for which emergency arbitration is unavailable. Under the 2021 Rules, the exclusion applied to arbitration agreements arising under treaties. The 2026 Rules extend that exclusion to arbitration agreements arising under investment protection legislation, thereby narrowing the scope of cases that can benefit from the EA mechanism.

5.2. Why this change was made

The change reflects the frequent use of corporate groups, successors and multi-contract structures in international commerce. It removes a categorical barrier to emergency relief against a non-signatory, but it does not create a new substantive basis for binding that party. The applicant must still show a plausible arbitration agreement, and the relevant law continues to govern whether the non-signatory is ultimately bound.

5.3. What this means in practice

For parties seeking urgent relief, the significance of a preliminary order lies in both its enforceability and its practical effect. In some jurisdictions, courts may be reluctant to enforce an ex parte preliminary order. Nevertheless, a party that ignores such an order may face significant consequences within the arbitration itself, including adverse inferences, procedural disadvantages and cost sanctions. Furthermore, the order preserves the status quo until the emergency arbitrator issues a fully reasoned decision, which must be delivered within 15 days of receiving the case file.

6. Better arbitrator disclosure and confidentiality

6.1. What changed

Article 12 of the 2026 Rules strengthens the rules on arbitrator disclosure in three ways. First, when an arbitrator is unsure whether to disclose something, the default is now to disclose (Article 12(2)). Second, the fact of disclosure does not, by itself, mean the arbitrator lacks independence or impartiality (Article 12(4)). Third, each party must now submit to the ICC Secretariat a list of people and organisations that prospective arbitrators should check for conflicts of interest, along with an explanation of the connection (Article 12(5)). This list must be filed with the Request for Arbitration, the Answer, and any joinder or extension request.

Article 12(8) introduces an express confidentiality obligation for arbitrators in relation to all matters concerning the arbitration, subject to stated exceptions. Article 44 extends that obligation, as well as the arbitrators’ disclosure duties, to tribunal secretaries and other persons appointed by the tribunal. The Rules still do not impose a general duty of confidentiality on the parties. If party confidentiality matters, it should be addressed in the contract, Procedural Order No. 1 or a separate confidentiality order. The third-party funding disclosure obligation is retained in Article 12(6): a party must promptly disclose the existence and identity of any non-party funder with an economic interest in the outcome.

6.2. Why this change was made

Challenges to arbitrators - whether based on genuine concerns or used as a delay tactic - are a growing problem in international arbitration. The previous rules placed the entire burden of identifying potential conflicts on the arbitrator and the ICC Secretariat, working only from the information in the Request and Answer. Parties often have much better information about their own corporate structures, funders, and relationships with counsel. The new conflict-check list requirement shifts part of this responsibility to the parties.

6.3. What this means in practice

The clarification that disclosure does not, in itself, imply bias gives arbitrators more confidence to disclose borderline situations, which benefits all parties. The conflict-check list gives parties a structured opportunity to identify relevant relationships at the outset and should reduce the risk that a connection emerges only after the tribunal is constituted. A party that fails to include a known relationship in its list will find it harder to raise a challenge on that ground later in the proceedings.

The change also has an important procedural consequence. The Rules do not expressly state that an omission waives a later challenge. Even so, a party that knew of a relationship but failed to identify it in its conflict-check list may find it considerably more difficult to rely on that relationship as a basis for challenging an arbitrator at a later stage. In that sense, the new regime is designed not only to improve transparency, but also to promote procedural efficiency and discourage tactical challenges based on information that was known from the beginning.

7. Digital by default and other practical changes

Article 3 makes electronic transmission the default for written communications. Hard copies of the Request, Answer or Request for Joinder are required only if the filing party asks for delivery against receipt, by registered post or courier, or if electronic transmission is impracticable. Article 27 also confirms that, after consulting the parties, the tribunal may determine whether a hearing will be held in person, remotely or in hybrid form. Article 19(3) expressly permits remote and hybrid deliberations.

The 2026 Rules also modernise the treatment of awards. Article 38 permits a tribunal, after consulting the parties and considering the circumstances, to sign an award electronically, sign it in counterparts and request notification in paper or electronic form, subject to applicable law. The provision formalises practices that became common during and after the pandemic.

Another change concerns tribunal secretaries. Article 7 of Appendix III makes clear that their involvement should not create any additional financial burden for the parties beyond reasonable expenses, and prohibits separate fee arrangements between tribunal members and the parties.

Finally, Article 48 resolves an issue that occasionally gives rise to uncertainty in multinational disputes: in the event of any inconsistency between language versions of the Rules, the English text prevails.

8. Conclusions

The 2026 Rules offer more ways to match procedure to the dispute. HEAP and the higher Expedited Procedure threshold may reduce time and arbitrator fees in suitable cases; Article 30 can dispose of plainly untenable claims or defences; and the revised Emergency Arbitrator Provisions strengthen urgent interim protection. None of these mechanisms is automatically beneficial in every case.

At the same time, greater procedural flexibility comes with greater responsibility for parties and their counsel. The abolition of mandatory Terms of Reference means that claims and defences must be articulated more clearly at the outset. The new conflict-check requirements demand earlier and more thorough preparation. And the expanded menu of procedural options makes drafting the arbitration clause more important than ever.

Ukraine’s reconstruction is likely to generate a substantial volume of cross-border disputes in the years ahead. Many of those disputes will be commercially urgent, document-intensive, and involve complex corporate structures, multiple stakeholders, or interconnected contractual relationships. Several of the 2026 reforms, including HEAP, the strengthened emergency arbitration provisions, and the new early determination mechanism, appear well suited to that environment.

9. What to do now

Review standard arbitration clauses. Revisit template agreements and standard dispute-resolution provisions to ensure they align with the 2026 Rules. Particular attention should be paid to high-volume contracts and agreements that are likely to generate repeat disputes.

Make a conscious decision about the Expedited Procedure. For contracts where disputes are likely to fall within the USD 3-4 million range, consider whether the efficiencies of the Expedited Procedure outweigh the benefits of a three-member tribunal. If not, an express opt-out may be appropriate.

Consider whether HEAP is suitable. For relationships that are likely to produce commercially urgent but relatively straightforward disputes, a HEAP opt-in clause may provide a significantly faster route to a final award. Where adopted, parties should use the ICC model clause rather than bespoke wording.

Prepare for the new conflict-check requirements. Establish and maintain an internal record of relevant affiliates, ultimate beneficial owners, third-party funders, insurers, and other entities that may be relevant to conflict checks. Having this information readily available will make it easier to comply with Article 12(5) and reduce the risk of conflict-related disputes later in the proceedings.

Review interim-relief and enforcement strategy in advance. Where a counterparty operates through a corporate group or holds assets in several jurisdictions, consider whether emergency arbitration, court measures or both are likely to be effective. The answer depends on the seat, the location of assets and the local rules on recognition of emergency and ex parte measures.

Authors: Oleg Alyoshin, Vsevolod Mazurenko