1. Introduction of Early Determination
2. Introduction of Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP)
3. Transition from Terms of Reference (ToR) to Case Management Conference (CMC)
4. Upgraded Emergency Arbitration Mechanism
5. Higher Threshold for Expedited Arbitration and Cost Management Reforms
The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules (“2026 ICC Rules”) entered into force on 1 June 2026. This is the most significant revision since the 2021 Rules. Rather than a fundamental overhaul, the amendments preserve the ICC’s traditional strengths, procedural flexibility, neutrality, and scrutiny of awards. While introducing targeted improvements aimed at efficiency, digitalisation, and active case management.
For the first time, 2026 ICC Rules introduce an Early Determination mechanism. A party may request an early decision on claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Early Determination allows tribunals to dispose of clearly baseless claims at an early stage and avoid unnecessary procedural costs.
However, two practical uncertainties remain:
• The 2026 ICC Rules do not specify a deadline for filing an application.
It remains uncertain whether a party should file an application for Early Determination prior to the Initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”), before submitting its Statement of Defence, or “as soon as possible” following the submission of the Request for Arbitration or the Statement of Defence, in accordance with the ICC’s Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration.
The standard of “as soon as possible” is highly discretionary and may give rise to disputes.
By contrast, Article 26 of the 2023 Rules of the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (“SCCA”) explicitly requires that such applications be submitted within 30 days following the filing of the relevant Request or Statement of Defence.
• The 2026 ICC Rules do not prescribe a time limit for the tribunal to decide on the application.
The 2026 ICC Rules merely require the tribunal to consider the parties’ submissions before issuing a decision, without defining a concrete time limit.
By comparison, the SCCA Rules mandate that the tribunal shall render a decision within 30 days of accepting the application, whereas Article 47 of the 2025 Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) provides that the tribunal shall issue its decision within 45 days from the submission of the application.
The new Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”) supplements the existing Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“EAP”, Appendix V).
Main features:
• Sole arbitrator only;
• Initial CMC within 7 days of receipt of the file from the Secretary;
• Final award within 3 months of the initial CMC;
• No joinder or consolidation;
HEAP and EAP exist concurrently, with HEAP designed to be procedurally more streamlined.
The primary distinction is that HEAP is not automatically applied based on a monetary threshold and is available only on an opt-in basis by the parties.
Parties may also subsequently opt out by agreement at any time.
The replacement of the Terms of Reference (“ToR”) with the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) represents a major procedural shift.
Unlike the ToR, which functioned as a formal procedural charter signed by the parties, the CMC focuses on dynamic case management and the establishment of a procedural timetable, and may be conducted in person, in a hybrid format, or remotely.
The time limit for rendering awards will now follow the procedural timetable rather than the former default six-month period.
The core functions of defining the scope of claims and establishing the procedural framework remain, but the relevant procedural milestone becomes the Initial CMC rather than the signing of the ToR.
Unless authorized by the tribunal, parties may not introduce additional claims after the Initial CMC, which shall be convened within 30 days of the tribunal receiving the case file.
Notably, under the 2021 ICC Rules, EAP explicitly did not apply Article 23 (ToR).
Under the 2026 ICC Rules, EAP explicitly applies Article 24 (CMC), with a shorter timeframe: the CMC shall be held within 15 days upon receiving the file.
The 2026 ICC Rules expand the scope of Emergency Arbitration and introduce Preliminary Orders.
(1) Expansion of Scope
Under the 2021 ICC Rules, Emergency Arbitration was available only to signatories to the arbitration agreement and their successors.
The 2026 ICC Rules broaden this scope by providing that a third party may participate in Emergency Arbitration where the ICC Court President is satisfied on a prima facie basis that the arbitration agreement may bind that party.
In practice, however, the enforceability of emergency measures remains subject to important limitations.
While an emergency arbitrator’s order may be binding upon parties participating in the proceedings, uncertainty remains as to whether such orders can effectively bind non-parties to the arbitration agreement, such as banks, guarantors, or other third-party stakeholders.
For example, a contractor seeking to prevent an employer from calling an on-demand performance bond may apply for Emergency Arbitration and request an order directing the issuing bank to suspend payment.
As the bank is ordinarily not a party to the arbitration agreement, the emergency order may not be directly enforceable against the bank.
A more practical approach may be to seek an order restraining the employer—who is bound by the arbitration agreement—from making the demand under the bond, while simultaneously applying to the competent court for injunctive relief against the bank.
In short, parties considering Emergency Arbitration should assess not only whether the intended respondent is bound by the arbitration agreement, but also whether parallel court relief may be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the requested measures.
(2) Preliminary Orders
The 2026 ICC Rules also introduce a new mechanism for Preliminary Orders.
At any stage of the Emergency Arbitration proceedings, a party may request a Preliminary Order directing another party to refrain from conduct that may frustrate the purpose of the emergency relief sought, such as dissipation of assets or destruction of evidence.
Such requests may be made and determined on an ex parte basis, without prior notice to the opposing party.
However, once a Preliminary Order has been granted, the emergency arbitrator shall promptly afford the affected parties a reasonable opportunity to present their views and may modify, suspend, or revoke the order in light of those submissions.
Timing Requirements and Practical Uncertainties
Under the 2026 ICC Rules, an emergency arbitrator shall be appointed within 2 days of the Secretariat’s receipt of the application, establish a procedural timetable within 2 days of transmission of the file, and render an emergency order within 15 days thereafter.
The Rules, however, do not expressly clarify whether Preliminary Orders are subject to the same fifteen-day time limit, leaving a degree of uncertainty in practice.
By comparison, the 2025 SIAC Rules provide a more detailed framework for Protective Preliminary Order (“PPO”).
Under the SIAC regime, an emergency arbitrator shall be appointed within 24 hours of receipt of the application and the required fees, and shall determine the PPO application within 24 hours of appointment.
These timelines operate independently from the ordinary 14-day period applicable to emergency arbitration orders.
For parties seeking urgent asset preservation or evidence-protection measures, the ICC’s Preliminary Order mechanism offers a valuable procedural tool.
Nevertheless, the absence of clear timing requirements may require parties to build greater procedural flexibility into their dispute resolution arrangements and, where appropriate, pursue parallel judicial relief to ensure effective protection.
(1) Expansion of the Scope of Expedited Arbitration Provisions
The automatic application threshold for EAP increases from USD 3 million to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026.
This amendment significantly broadens the range of disputes eligible for EAP.
As under the 2021 ICC Rules, parties remain free to opt into the EAP regardless of the amount in dispute or, conversely, to opt out of its application by agreement.
(2) Retention of the Default Sole Arbitrator Regime
With respect to the constitution of the tribunal, the EAP continues to operate on the basis of a sole arbitrator by default, even where the parties have agreed in their arbitration agreement that disputes shall be decided by a three-member tribunal.
At the same time, the ICC Court retains discretion, having regard to the complexity of the dispute and other relevant circumstances, to appoint a three-member tribunal while maintaining the application of the EAP.
(3) Cost Management Reforms
The 2026 ICC Rules also introduce a number of cost-management measures.
Certain powers previously exercised by the ICC Court in relation to costs and advances on costs have been delegated to the Secretary General, thereby streamlining administrative decision-making and enhancing procedural efficiency.
In addition, the 2026 ICC Rules introduce a bank guarantee mechanism under Appendix III, allowing parties, subject to specified conditions, to secure advances on costs exceeding the applicable threshold through the provision of a bank guarantee rather than an immediate cash payment.
The 2026 ICC Rules reflect the international arbitration community’s continued focus on efficiency, digitalisation, and proactive case management.
For Chinese companies operating internationally, understanding these developments is not merely a matter of compliance but a strategic consideration that may significantly influence future dispute resolution outcomes and costs.
