Legal update: ICC Arbitration Rules 2026

Published Date: 20 July 2026

The 2026 ICC Rules of Arbitration entered into force on 1 June 2026 and apply to all ICC arbitrations commenced on or after that date, unless the parties have agreed to submit to an earlier version of the Rules (Art 1(2), 2026 ICC Rules). 

We set out four key changes below.

Removal of Mandatory Terms of Reference

One significant change in the new Rules is the removal of the Terms of Reference (“ToR”) as a mandatory procedural step. 

• Under the 2021 ICC Rules, the tribunal had the responsibility of preparing the ToR as soon as it receives the file. The ToR served as a case management tool by outlining the tribunal’s mandate, covering the scope of the dispute, the claims, relief sought and procedural rules. After the ToR has been signed or approved by the ICC Court, no party shall make new claims which fall outside the limits of the ToR unless it has been authorised to do so by the tribunal.
• Under the 2026 ICC Rules, ToR are no longer a necessary step in ICC proceedings, although arbitral tribunals retain the discretion to establish them where appropriate. As a result, the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) now serves as the primary procedural milestone.

The tribunal must hold an initial CMC within 30 days of receiving the file from the ICC Secretariat (Art 24(1), 2026 ICC Rules), after which no party may introduce new claims without the tribunal’s authorisation (Art 25, 2026 ICC Rules). This means that parties should ensure that their claims (and counterclaims) are articulated as fully as possible in the Request for Arbitration and Answer. 

The default time limit of six months from the ToR for issuing the final award has also been removed. Under the 2026 ICC Rules, the tribunal must inform the ICC Secretariat and the parties of the date by which it intends to submit its draft award to the ICC Court for approval as soon as possible after the last hearing (Art 28, 2026 ICC Rules). The time limit for rendering awards will now be fixed by the President of the ICC Court, taking into account the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the tribunal (Art 34, 2026 ICC Rules). The ICC has also clarified that, notwithstanding the removal of the six-month time limit, the practice of reducing arbitrator fees in case of unwarranted delays in the conduct of the proceedings and submitting draft awards for scrutiny will still be applied and enforced in all ICC arbitrations. 

Enhancements to the expedited procedure provisions

The 2026 ICC Rules also offer two expedited pathways for the resolution of disputes: (a) Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”), and (b) Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”). 

• HEAP – Applies when “all parties so agree” (Art 33, 2026 ICC Rules). The agreement may be by way of: (a) the arbitration agreement, or (b) subsequently agreed after the dispute has arisen. There is no monetary threshold or automatic application. Parties have to opt-in for the procedure and can choose HEAP regardless of claim quantum. Under HEAP, parties have 20 days to nominate a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator has three months from the initial CMC to issue the award. While the arbitrator maintains broad discretion to adopt procedural measures as appropriate to issue the award within time, in practice, parties can expect tighter limits on the number of submissions, or directions that dispense with document production or a hearing. Parties may agree to the issuance of an award without reasons. 
• EPP – The features of an EPP remain unchanged from the 2021 ICC Rules. This includes the default appointment of a sole arbitrator, issuance of award within six months, shorter procedural timelines, limits on submissions, hearings and overall arbitration costs that are lower than in ordinary arbitral proceedings. What has changed, however, is the monetary threshold for the automatic application of the EPP. This has increased from USD 3 million under the 2021 ICC Rules to USD 4 million for claims brought under arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. Parties are also free to agree to apply the EPP to their arbitration. 

With these changes, both the ICC and SIAC now offer two-track pathways to expedited dispute resolution under their respective rules. While the frameworks share the same underlying objective of speed and cost-efficiency, there are notable differences in design. One key difference is that the HEAP is an opt-in procedure, while the SIAC’s Streamlined Procedure is an opt-out procedure for claims at or below SGD 1 million.

Enhanced emergency arbitration procedures

Emergency arbitration (“EA”) may be sought when a party requires urgent relief before a formal tribunal can be constituted (eg, to prevent a party from dissipating assets). 

• Under the 2021 ICC Rules, the EA provisions applied only to: (a) signatories of the arbitration agreement, or (b) successors to such signatories. 
• Under the 2026 ICC Rules, signatories to the arbitration agreement and their successors may continue to invoke the EA provisions. What has changed, however, is that where the President is satisfied, based on information in the application, that a party may be bound by an arbitration agreement, such a party may also invoke the EA provisions (Appendix IV, Article 1(2)(c), 2026 ICC Rules). This is a prima facie assessment. The tribunal, once constituted, may modify, terminate or annul the emergency arbitrator’s orders. The tribunal is not bound by any findings of fact, question, issue or dispute determined by the emergency arbitrator or the reasons given by the emergency arbitrator (see Appendix IV, Art 6(10), 2026 ICC Rules).

Parties may at any stage of the emergency arbitration proceedings also seek a “preliminary order” directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of an emergency arbitration application (Appendix IV, Art 7 ICC Rules). Such request may be made and decided upon without notice to the other parties. This mirrors the protective preliminary order regime under the 2025 SIAC Rules (Schedule 1, para 25), under which a party may similarly seek a without-notice order from an emergency arbitrator directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the emergency application.

Early determination 

The 2026 ICC Rules also introduce an express provision for parties to apply to the tribunal for early determination of one or more claims or defences on the grounds that they are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal's jurisdiction (Art 30(1), 2026 ICC Rules). The tribunal has discretion whether to allow the application to proceed. This codifies what was previously an implied power addressed only in ICC guidance notes, gives more predictability to users and confers greater authority on the tribunal’s decisions on early determination. As the procedure is designed to promote efficiency, a party seeking early determination is expected to make an application as promptly as possible after the relevant claims or defences are filed.

There is a similar early determination mechanism under the 2025 SIAC Rules (Rule 47.1). There is some difference in how the provisions are framed. While the 2025 SIAC Rules provide for dismissal of claims or defences on the basis that they are manifestly without legal merit, the 2026 ICC Rules simply provide that claims or defences may be dismissed on the basis that they are without merit although it remains to be seen how tribunals would apply this in practice.

For further enquiries, please contact:

Una Khng at una.khng@helmsmanlaw.com 

Chen Zhida at zhida.chen@helmsmanlaw.com 

Asher Chin at asher.chin@helmsmanlaw.com