ICC arbitration rules 2026: Faster, smarter, and closer to modern arbitration practice

Why this matters

The 2026 revision responds to concerns increasingly voiced by arbitration users regarding procedural rigidity, front-loaded costs, and delays during the early stages of proceedings. At the same time, the ICC has carefully preserved two foundational principles that remain essential to the legitimacy of arbitral proceedings:

• the parties’ right to equal treatment and due process, reflected in Italy by Article 816-bis(1) CPC, which requires arbitrators to grant the parties reasonable and equivalent opportunities to present their cases; and
• the institutional supervision exercised by the ICC Court and Secretariat, which remains a defining feature of ICC arbitration and contributes to the enforceability and overall quality of awards.

Against this backdrop, the 2026 Rules introduce several targeted reforms designed to streamline proceedings while preserving procedural fairness.

1. Farewell to mandatory terms of reference

The most significant reform is the abolition of the mandatory Terms of Reference (ToR).

Historically, the ToR served as a unique feature of ICC arbitration. Prepared shortly after the constitution of the tribunal, ToR summarized the parties’ claims, procedural agreements, and the issues to be decided. However, the ToR gradually lost much of its practical utility.

Over time, parties increasingly viewed the exercise as an additional procedural layer that generated costs and delays without materially contributing to case management. Moreover, parties were often reluctant to crystallize their positions at such an early stage of the proceedings.

The 2026 Rules therefore remove the mandatory ToR, while reinforcing the central role of the initial Case Management Conference (CMC) and the tribunal's first procedural order.

This change brings ICC practice closer to other leading arbitral frameworks and aligns naturally with the broad procedural powers granted to arbitrators under Italian law. In arbitrations seated in Italy, Article 816-bis CPC allows arbitrators to organize proceedings as they deem appropriate, while Article 816-bis(2) expressly authorizes them to regulate procedural matters through procedural orders. Article 816-bis(3) further provides that arbitrators may decide procedural issues through revocable orders not subject to filing requirements.

Practical implication: the tribunal's first procedural order will become the primary procedural roadmap of the arbitration, governing matters such as the procedural calendar, document production, witness evidence, and filing requirements.

2. Early determination becomes an express procedural tool

The 2026 Rules formalize the possibility of Early Determination, allowing a tribunal to dispose of claims or defences that are:

• manifestly without merit; or
• manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction (that, according to the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, also recognized by Art. 817 CPC, may be decided by the Tribunal itself).

Although similar mechanisms already existed in ICC practice and in other arbitration systems, their codification is likely to encourage wider use.

At the same time, tribunals will need to exercise caution to ensure that expedited dismissals do not compromise the parties’ right to be heard.

Practical implication: parties may now have a clearer procedural pathway to pass obviously meritless claims at an early stage, potentially reducing costs and shortening proceedings.

3. More cases eligible for expedited arbitration — Plus a new “highly expedited” procedure

The ICC has substantially expanded its fast-track offering.

Higher threshold for expedited procedure

The threshold for the default Expedited Procedure (which is still subject to an opt out by the Parties) has been increased from EUR 3 million to EUR 4 million.

As a result, a significantly larger proportion of ICC cases will automatically benefit from simplified procedures, including streamlined case management and shorter timelines.

Introducing highly expedited arbitration

More striking is the creation of a new Highly Expedited Arbitration regime.

Available on an opt-in basis, regardless of the amount in dispute, this procedure is intended for cases involving limited factual or legal complexity and features:

• a sole arbitrator;
• highly compressed timelines;
• the possibility of deciding the dispute on documents alone;
• a final award within three months; and
• the option of an unreasoned award.

While attractive from an efficiency perspective, the possibility of an unreasoned award may raise questions in certain jurisdictions. From an Italian perspective, the issue may intersect with broader public-policy considerations regarding the requirement that adjudicative decisions be reasoned. However, the Italian legal system (at Art. 281-sexies CPC) provides for the possibility that State courts’ decisions are accompanied by a brief (“concise”) reasoning so that only totally unreasoned award may be challenged (if the arbitration is seated in Italy) or not enforced.

Practical implication: businesses now have access to one of the most streamlined institutional arbitration procedures currently available.

4. Emergency arbitrators receive enhanced powers

The ICC has strengthened its emergency arbitration framework.

Under the new Rules, emergency proceedings may commence where an arbitration agreement “may exist”, even if jurisdiction remains disputed.

The Rules also empower emergency arbitrators to issue preliminary orders, including ex parte measures, aimed at preserving the effectiveness of the emergency proceedings themselves.

These developments are particularly interesting from an Italian perspective. Since the reform of Articles 818 et seq. CPC, arbitrators seated in Italy may grant interim measures where the arbitration agreement refers to arbitral rules conferring such powers. The arbitrators’ power to grant interim measures of any kind exists starting from the moment when the arbitral tribunal is constituted, while national courts are competent to issue interim measures until then. It is reasonable to assume that, in arbitrations seated in Italy, the possibility that emergency arbitrators whose jurisdiction “may exist” issue preliminary orders might anticipate the moment from which domestic courts are not anymore empowered from issuing interim measures.

Practical implication: parties seeking urgent protection may obtain interim relief more rapidly and with fewer procedural obstacles.

5. Expanded disclosure obligations for arbitrators — and new duties for parties

The 2026 Rules provide greater clarity regarding arbitrators’ disclosure obligations.

A notable innovation is the requirement that parties themselves submit a list of individuals and entities that prospective arbitrators should consider when evaluating potential conflicts of interest.

At the same time, arbitrators remain under a continuing duty to disclose any circumstance that could reasonably give rise to doubts concerning their independence or impartiality.

The reform closely mirrors developments in Italian arbitration law. Under Article 813 CPC, arbitrators must provide a written declaration disclosing any circumstance potentially affecting their independence, and they must update that declaration whenever new circumstances arise. The grounds requiring disclosure are further detailed in Article 815 CPC, which includes professional, personal, financial, and other relationships capable of affecting impartiality.

The revised ICC Rules therefore move even closer to the standards already familiar to practitioners operating in Italy.

Practical implication: enhanced transparency during the appointment phase may reduce challenges and increase confidence in the tribunal's neutrality.

6. Confidentiality is now expressly codified

The new Rules introduce an explicit obligation requiring arbitrators to keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration, subject only to limited exceptions.

Although confidentiality has long been regarded as an inherent characteristic of arbitration, national approaches differ significantly. By codifying the obligation, the ICC creates a uniform baseline standard applicable regardless of the seat of arbitration.

Practical implication: greater predictability and stronger protection of sensitive information across jurisdictions.

7. Tribunal secretaries officially enter the rulebook

Another noteworthy development is the formal recognition of the role (and duties) of tribunal secretaries.

The Rules now expressly provide that tribunal secretaries may assist the tribunal under its direction and control, provided that decision-making authority remains exclusively with the arbitrators.

The Rules further require tribunal secretaries to satisfy the same standards of independence, impartiality, and confidentiality applicable to arbitrators.

The reform addresses longstanding debates surrounding the role of tribunal secretaries and provides welcome transparency regarding their functions.

Practical implication: parties receive greater assurance regarding the scope and limits of the secretary’s involvement in the arbitral process.

8. Digital-First arbitration

The ICC has fully embraced digital practice.

Electronic communications now constitute the default means of communication throughout the proceedings, and electronic signatures are expressly permitted for arbitral awards.

This modernization is fully consistent with contemporary practice and broadly aligned with developments already accepted under Italian procedural law.

Practical implication: reduced administrative burdens, lower costs, and increased procedural efficiency.

9. A more realistic approach to award deadlines

Finally, the ICC has eliminated the traditional six-month deadline for rendering the final award.

Instead, the ICC President will establish an appropriate deadline based on the procedural timetable adopted during the case management phase or upon a reasoned request by the tribunal.

The reform acknowledges what practitioners have long known: in complex cases, the previous deadline frequently required extensions and often functioned more as an aspirational target than a realistic timeframe.

The change also interacts interestingly with Italian arbitration law. Article 820 CPC provides a default period of 240 days for issuing an award unless the parties agree otherwise and allows for extensions in specified circumstances. Article 821 CPC further provides that expiration of the deadline does not automatically invalidate an award unless a party formally invokes the arbitrators’ loss of authority before the award is rendered.

Practical implication: tribunals will enjoy greater flexibility to tailor procedural timetables to the needs of each case while avoiding unnecessary extension requests.

Key takeaways for businesses

The ICC's 2026 revision is best understood as a carefully calibrated effort to reduce procedural friction without sacrificing procedural fairness.

Among the reforms, four stand out as particularly significant:

Elimination of mandatory Terms of Reference, reducing front-end costs and delays;

Formal introduction of Early Determination, allowing tribunals to dispose of manifestly unmeritorious claims more efficiently;

Expansion of expedited proceedings and creation of a Highly Expedited Arbitration regime, offering unprecedented speed for suitable disputes;

Enhanced transparency through strengthened disclosure obligations and codified confidentiality standards.

For parties involved in arbitrations seated in Italy, the reforms are especially noteworthy because they largely complement — rather than conflict with — the modernized framework of the Italian CPC, particularly Articles 813, 815, 816-bis, 817, 818, 820 and 821 CPC.

The overall direction is unmistakable: ICC arbitration is becoming faster, more flexible, and increasingly aligned with the practical expectations of sophisticated commercial users, while continuing to preserve the procedural guarantees that remain essential to the legitimacy and enforceability of arbitral awards.

Authored by Andrea Atteritano and Giovanni Zarra.