The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules – A GCC perspective

Despite the proliferation of regional arbitral institutions, these developments are particularly relevant for users in the GCC. ICC arbitration still remains one of the most common mechanisms for resolving disputes arising out of construction, energy, infrastructure, finance and joint venture arrangements across the region, and the ICC still maintains a regional office in Abu Dhabi. Such disputes frequently involve multi-contract structures, complex ownership arrangements, and, in many cases (particularly for older contracts), state-linked counterparties, together with assets located across multiple jurisdictions. 

These revisions to the ICC Rules also come at a time of significant development of the regional disputes landscape. By way of example, in recent years the region has seen the consolidation of arbitral institutions in the UAE, including the development of the DIAC Rules 2022 and the increasing use of common law seats such as the DIFC and ADGM (and related common law courts), the growth of the SCCA in Saudi Arabia, and the establishment of the BICC in Bahrain.  The GCC therefore offers parties with a variety of modern and sophisticated options for resolving disputes, so the revisions to the ICC Rules are timely. 

We set out below some of the key revisions that will be of most interest to GCC users.

Early case formulation in the absence of mandatory Terms of Reference

The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference represents one of the more significant structural changes to ICC arbitration. A feature of the previous Rules, this requirement has now been removed, albeit tribunals still retain discretion to adopt such a mechanism where appropriate.

In its place, the revised Rules place greater emphasis on early procedural organisation through the Case Management Conference. Article 24 requires the tribunal hold an initial Case Management Conference within 30 days from receiving the file and to establish the procedural timetable during or shortly after the conference. Article 25 introduces a clearer restriction on the introduction of new claims after that stage without the tribunal’s authorisation.

This shift is likely to have practical consequences. Many disputes in the region, particularly in construction and infrastructure, do not fully crystallise at the outset. Claims are often developed incrementally as documentation is assembled, expert analysis progresses and the role of different project entities becomes clearer. Under the previous regime, parties often spent significant time negotiating the Terms of Reference, and it was not uncommon for disputes to arise later as to whether a party’s developing case fell within their scope. The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference may therefore reduce an early procedural burden, but it also places greater importance on how parties frame their claims, defences and counterclaims at the outset.

This development also brings ICC practice closer to that of regional institutions. The DIAC Rules 2022, for example, adopt a more flexible approach to case management and do not rely on a formalised Terms of Reference stage, instead providing tribunals with tools to structure proceedings through early procedural directions and case management powers.

However, in more complex GCC disputes involving multiple or lengthy contracts, competing jurisdictional arguments or state-linked entities, there may still be value in adopting a document or procedural step that performs a similar function. The revised Rules render Terms of Reference optional, but the underlying need for early clarity remains.

Procedural selection and the practical limits of expedited mechanisms

The revised Rules introduces the “Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions”, set out in Appendix VI. This is one of the more ambitious developments in the Rules.

The regime provides for a tightly managed process, including front-loaded submissions and the issuance of a final award within three months of the Case Management Conference. Alongside this, the standard Expedited Procedure under Appendix V has been expanded through the increase of the automatic threshold to USD 4 million.

In principle, these provisions enhance the flexibility of ICC arbitration. In practice, their application in the GCC is likely to be selective and only really relevant for low value and straightforward matters. Many disputes in the region, however, are driven by complex factual and technical issues arising out of ambitious projects or high value contractual relationships. For example, construction arbitrations often require delay analysis, expert evidence and document production; energy and infrastructure disputes may involve long-running projects and regulatory frameworks; and shareholder and joint venture disputes frequently engage multiple agreements and parties.

By contrast, regional institutional rules such as the DIAC Rules 2022 accommodate complexity through express provisions on consolidation of proceedings and joinder of parties, as well as mechanisms for expedited cases where appropriate.

This creates a practical distinction. While the ICC Rules offer a wider spectrum of procedural options, the suitability of those options must be assessed in light of the structure and nature of the dispute. That may not be apparent when parties enter into their contractual relationship. Parties should therefore consider, at the drafting stage, whether the default expedited procedure is appropriate, whether the Highly Expedited regime should be expressly included or excluded, and whether any additional safeguards are needed for disputes that are likely to involve multiple parties, complex evidence or related contracts.

Interim relief and the expanding role of emergency arbitration

The 2026 ICC Rules also expand the framework for emergency arbitration under Appendix IV. Applications may now be made not only against signatories, but also against parties where the ICC President is satisfied, on a prima facie basis, that a binding arbitration agreement may exist.

The Rules also introduce express recognition of preliminary orders, including orders made without notice, with the emergency arbitrator retaining the power to modify or revoke such orders after hearing the affected parties.

These revisions will be relevant in the GCC context, where disputes frequently involve urgent issues such as calls on guarantees, dissipation of assets or interference with project operations.

However, as in many arbitration regimes, the critical issue is not simply the availability of interim relief, but its enforceability. Emergency arbitration under the ICC Rules is therefore most effective when combined with a coherent strategy for court support and enforcement, taking into account the location of assets and the identity of counterparties.

Early determination and its role in practice

The express inclusion of an early determination mechanism under Article 30 allows tribunals to dispose of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or outside their jurisdiction.

This codifies an approach previously reflected in ICC guidance and aligns the ICC more closely with other institutions that have adopted similar provisions.

In the GCC context, this is a welcome addition to the Rules, particularly where unmeritorious claims are commenced for strategic reasons. However, many disputes in the region involve complex factual and technical issues. As such, the practical application of this power may be limited to address plainly unarguable jurisdictional objections or claims that fail on a straightforward contractual analysis.

Disclosure, digitalisation and enforcement considerations

Other revisions might seem more mundane but are equally important. For example:

• The revised Rules restructure the provisions relating to arbitrator disclosure. Article 12 requires parties to identify relevant entities and individuals at the outset and obliges arbitrators to disclose any circumstances that may give rise to doubts as to independence or impartiality.
• The Rules also confirm electronic communications as the default position under Article 3 and permit awards to be signed electronically, in counterparts, and notified electronically or in paper form under Article 34. This is a welcome development for GCC-related arbitrations, where parties, arbitrators and counsel are often located across multiple jurisdictions.

While these developments reflect modern arbitral practice, their interaction with enforcement regimes in the GCC requires careful consideration. The GCC is, generally, now regarded as pro-arbitration, with modern and supportive arbitration regimes having been introduced into local laws throughout the region. However, in practice, enforcement in some GCC jurisdictions may involve closer scrutiny of formal requirements, including the form of the award and, in some cases, the reasoning provided.

For ICC users, this underscores the importance of aligning procedural decisions with enforcement strategy. In appropriate cases, parties may wish to adopt a conservative approach to award formalities, including the use of wet-ink signatures, certified copies or translations, particularly where enforcement is anticipated against local or state-linked entities.

Conclusion

The 2026 ICC Rules mark an important development, reflecting a move towards greater procedural flexibility, earlier case definition and enhanced case management tools.

For GCC users, the revisions are welcome. However, their practical impact will depend not only on the Rules themselves, but also on the seat of arbitration, the support provided by the supervisory courts, and the enforcement regime in the jurisdiction where assets are located.

For parties and practitioners, the key implication is the need for more deliberate decision-making at both the drafting and dispute stages. Procedural flexibility is useful, but only if it is exercised with a clear understanding of the nature of the dispute and the jurisdictions in which any award will ultimately be enforced.

Authored by Randall Walker, Sharad Joseph Kodianthara, and Sarah Tayara.