ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 released: Key changes and practical implications

19 June 2026

The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) recently launched the updated ICC Arbitration Rules, which entered into force on 1 June 2026 (“ICC Rules 2026”). These new rules contain several revisions to the ICC Rules 2021, aligning them more closely with international arbitration practices and guidelines.

The ICC Arbitration Rules are among the most widely used sets of international arbitration rules. As one of the world’s most popular seat of arbitration, this development is thus particularly important for Singapore.

This article highlights the following key updates:

  • Terms of Reference (“TOR”) are no longer a necessary step in ICC proceedings;
  • The introduction of the early determination procedure and the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”); and
  • Updates to the emergency arbitration procedure.

TOR

The most significant change in the ICC Rules 2026 is the removal of the TOR as a mandatory step in the arbitration, with tribunals retaining the discretion to utilise TORs as a case management tool if they so wish. This is a welcome change as there has been uncertainty about the continued usefulness of the TOR.

Historically, the TOR served as a case management tool outlining the tribunal’s mandate and is almost exclusively unique to ICC arbitrations. When it was introduced in 1922, the TOR was described as a “form of submission” to the ICC arbitration. It was a time when many jurisdictions did not recognise the efficacy of arbitration clauses and there were no international conventions on arbitration (see Eric Schäfer, The ICC Arbitral Process - Part II: Terms of Reference in the Past and at Present, 3(1) ICC Int’l Court Arb. Bull. 8 (1992)). To this end, the TOR was useful in assisting the ICC in administering the arbitration and determining how the award may be entitled to legal recognition.

The TOR’s purpose has arguably been superseded by modern case management techniques in international arbitration. This can be seen in the increasing detail with which procedures are set out within each iteration of the ICC Rules, as well as the well-established usage of procedural orders and procedural timetables by tribunals and parties. The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (commonly known as the New York Convention) also fundamentally reshaped international commercial arbitration by recognising arbitration agreements and facilitating the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

With these developments in practice and custom, the TOR has been viewed by some as an outdated requirement. In practice, discussions between parties aimed at agreeing on the TOR can sometimes give rise to disputes and contribute to increased costs.

This update to the ICC Arbitration Rules will thus make ICC proceedings more streamlined and efficient by removing an arguably outdated requirement. It also brings the ICC Rules in line with most institutional rules today such as those of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”), and the London Court of International Arbitration.

While the ICC has indicated that this change will result in the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) playing a more important role in the management of ICC proceedings, it has been observed that this is already the case in ICC arbitrations today, regardless of whether the parties agree on the TOR. With the update, parties now can focus their resources on setting out the procedural directions and timetables at the CMC without additional discussions on the contents of the TOR.

Early determination

The introduction of the early determination procedure in Article 30 of the ICC Rules 2026 formalises the use of such applications, which in practice have already been adopted in ICC proceedings. A party making an application for early determination of one or more claims or defences will have to show that such claims or defences are either manifestly without merit, or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The tribunal retains the discretion whether to allow the application to proceed.

SIAC and HKIAC adopt similar provisions in their respective institutional rules. Rule 47 of the SIAC Rules 2025 requires the claim or defence to be manifestly without legal merit or manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Article 43 of the HKIAC Rules 2018 requires the point of law or fact to be manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The question of what is “manifestly” without merit or without the tribunal’s jurisdiction varies among tribunals. Unlike common law litigation, there are rarely any precedents to guide tribunals on what the standard should be. However, it is generally accepted that the threshold to succeed on an early determination or dismissal application is necessarily a high one.

In practice, parties are expected to make such applications as early as possible. In determining whether to allow the application to proceed, tribunals will consider the stage of proceedings at which such applications are made and whether resolving the matter would require substantial legal or factual analysis.

HEAP

The HEAP builds on the Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”) in the ICC Rules. Disputes under the HEAP have the following features:

  • A sole arbitrator.
  • Highly truncated timelines, which require the Statement of Claim and Defence to be filed concurrently with the Request for Arbitration and Answer respectively.
  • Document production may be excluded.
  • The tribunal may determine the dispute without a hearing.
  • The tribunal must render its final award within three months from the date of the initial CMC.

The HEAP is designed for simple disputes which require swift resolution. The value of the claim does not play a role. Indeed, there is no threshold amount in dispute for arbitrations under HEAP. In contrast, the EPP is automatically applied to arbitrations by default if the value of the dispute is below the amounts stipulated in Article 1(3), Appendix V of the ICC Rules 2026.

The SIAC Rules 2025 recently introduced a procedure called the Streamlined Procedure (“SP”) which similarly contains a requirement for a sole arbitrator, highly truncated timelines, a default paper hearing with no document production, and a timeline for the award to be rendered within three months. However, there is no requirement for the pleadings to be filed together with the notice of arbitration or response to notice of arbitration. The SP only applies to claims not exceeding S$1 million.

Parties can opt into the HEAP either in the arbitration agreement itself or via agreement after the dispute has arisen. With an opt-in basis, parties have the flexibility to choose the HEAP for even high value multi-billion-dollar disputes. Examples may include a dispute between consortium partners as to the allocation of responsibility of scope of work during the lifespan of a renewables plant project. Such disputes generally involve a limited question of contractual interpretation, and the parties can consider using the HEAP to resolve this issue expeditiously and minimise further delays to the project.

Emergency arbitration

The ICC Rules 2026 now contain an express provision in Article 7, Appendix IV for parties to request a preliminary order (“PO”) directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of an emergency arbitration (“EA”) application. The application for a PO can be made and decided without notice. As a form of procedural safeguard, the ICC Rules 2026 require the emergency arbitrator to “immediately afford” all other parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case after the PO is granted.

This update closely follows the SIAC’s introduction of its protective preliminary order mechanism at Paragraph 25, Schedule 1 of the SIAC Rules 2025. Under the ICC Rules 2026, such PO applications can be made “at any stage of the emergency arbitrator proceedings”. The SIAC Rules 2025 suggest that the application for a protective preliminary order can only be made at the time of filing the EA application.

The ICC Rules 2026 also do not state when the PO expires or when parties must be heard on the PO. In contrast, protective preliminary orders issued under the SIAC Rules 2025 expire after 14 days.

The intention behind these features of a PO under the ICC Rules 2026 may possibly be to afford the emergency arbitrator and the parties maximum flexibility on how and when a PO application may be made and the form it should take. In practice, there may be situations where the need for a PO only arises after the EA application has been made due to the discovery of new facts necessitating a PO.

An increasing use of preliminary orders has been seen in a wide range of arbitrations administered under the SIAC Rules 2025, which demonstrates the popularity and need for such mechanisms in modern international arbitration. The introduction of the mechanism in the ICC Rules 2026 is therefore also a welcome change.

Conclusion

The ICC Rules 2026 contain many other updates including arbitrator disclosure requirements, written communications, time limits for awards, and confidentiality. The underlying theme of these changes is to reflect the ICC’s desire to enhance flexibility and usability. This is evident when examining the differences among the various institutional rules.

If you have any questions or require any assistance regarding disputes where the new ICC Rules 2026 may apply or how the new rules and procedures can be implemented in your contractual arrangements, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Reference materials

The ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 are available from the ICC website www.iccwbo.org.