The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules: A US Perspective

The 2026 ICC Rules of Arbitration came into force on June 1, 2026. The updates—including elimination of mandatory Terms of Reference, expanded emergency proceedings, new expedited procedures, express early determination provisions, enhanced disclosure obligations, and new confidentiality requirements for arbitrators—bring the ICC framework closer to procedural tools and expectations familiar to American parties. The revisions are particularly consequential for the US, which is the highest represented nationality among ICC arbitration users.¹

Explicit availability of an early determination mechanism 

One significant development under the 2026 ICC Rules is the express adoption of an early determination mechanism in Article 30. A party may apply to dispose of one or more claims or defenses at an early stage of the arbitration on the grounds that they are “manifestly without merit” or “manifestly outside [the tribunal’s] jurisdiction.”² If the tribunal accepts the application, it may finally dispose of claims or defenses without a full evidentiary hearing, through an award subject to ICC Court scrutiny.

This mechanism will be familiar to US parties because it parallels motion-to-dismiss and summary judgment practice in US litigation, where courts routinely resolve claims or defenses before trial. Dispositive motions are also available under the AAA Rules, although the AAA standard—"the moving party has shown that the motion is likely to succeed and to dispose of or narrow the issues in the case”³—is likely less demanding than the ICC standard. 

US courts have generally treated dispositive arbitral procedures as consistent with due process where parties receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The mechanism also sits comfortably with US jurisprudence favoring arbitrators’ authority to decide threshold issues, particularly where the parties have incorporated institutional rules that constitute clear and unmistakable delegation of arbitrability questions.

Although early determination previously appeared in ICC guidance, its elevation to the Rules may encourage greater use, particularly in disputes involving primarily legal issues, limited evidentiary disputes, or jurisdictional objections. US parties may be more inclined to seek summary disposal of frivolous claims or defenses given their familiarity with such applications. To maximize time and cost savings, parties should apply early in the procedure. Parties should also consider carefully whether the demanding “manifestly” standard is satisfied, because an unsuccessful application may increase costs, delay the proceedings, and preview legal theories.

Emphasis on early case management and elimination of the Terms of Reference 

Under the 2026 ICC Rules, the Terms of Reference (ToR) are no longer mandatory, although the tribunal retains discretion to draw up Terms of Reference if desired.⁴ The ToR was long a unique feature of ICC arbitrations, setting out the parties’ claims, the relief sought and the procedural framework. Removing this requirement aligns ICC practice more closely with US procedural expectations: the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not require a ToR-style document, and US-administered arbitrations under rules such as AAA, ICDR, and JAMS generally rely on procedural orders, pleadings, and case management conferences rather than formalized ToRs.

Practically, removing the ToR requirement means the initial Case Management Conference (CMC) now carries greater significance. Under the revised Rules, the CMC is to be held within 30 days of transmitting the file to the tribunal; after that conference, no party may introduce new claims without tribunal authorization. Parties should therefore front-load case assessment and ensure that claims, defenses, and requested relief are properly developed before the CMC. For US parties accustomed to early scheduling conferences and procedural orders, this approach should feel familiar.

Option to proceed under the Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (HEAP) and expansion of expedited procedure 

The 2026 ICC Rules also introduce a Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (HEAP) to promote swift resolution of time-sensitive, relatively straightforward disputes on an opt-in basis.⁵ Under HEAP, the claimant must submit its Statement of Claim with the Request for Arbitration, setting out the legal grounds and factual basis supporting the claim, and an award is expected within three months of the initial CMC. The amendments also expand the availability of the Expedited Procedure under Appendix V by increasing the monetary threshold for automatic applicability from US$ 3 million to US$ 4 million, unless the parties opt out.

HEAP and the expanded Expedited Procedure align with the practice of US-based arbitral institutions, including the AAA, that also promote expedited proceedings.⁶ Parties may also agree to an award without reasons, an option that may make sense depending on the parties’ contract. US law generally does not require reasoned awards unless the parties expressly agreed to them, but a reasoned award may still be preferable where enforcement, confirmation, vacatur, or future issue-preclusion concerns are likely to arise.

Scope of emergency proceeding broadened

Notably, the 2026 ICC Rules broaden the scope of emergency proceedings to include not only signatories to the arbitration agreement and their successors, but also any party for which the President is satisfied, on a prima facie basis, “that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist.”⁷ The new Rules also expressly permit emergency arbitrators to issue preliminary orders directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the emergency application, including on an ex parte basis where appropriate.⁸

These amendments recognize that parties often need urgent interim relief before a tribunal is fully constituted, including orders preserving assets, evidence or the status quo. US parties should remain alert to enforcement issues, as US courts sometimes distinguish between interim procedural orders and final “awards” enforceable under the FAA, and the ICC Rules’ “may exist” formulation could create tension with US courts’ insistence on a valid written arbitration agreement. Practically, the expanded emergency-arbitrator procedure may be useful, but it does not eliminate the option of seeking temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions in federal or state court where doing so is necessary or more readily enforceable.

Enhanced disclosure, tribunal secretaries and confidentiality

The 2026 ICC Rules also reorganize and strengthen provisions relating to arbitrator independence and impartiality. Parties must list relevant entities and individuals at the outset of the arbitration to assist conflicts checks, in addition to arbitrators’ required disclosures. For US parties, these provisions matter because challenges to arbitral awards under Section 10 of the FAA often focus on evident partiality or alleged undisclosed conflicts. Earlier, more structured disclosures may reduce the risk of vacatur on such grounds.

The revised ICC Rules also formally recognize tribunal secretaries and require them to satisfy independence, impartiality and confidentiality requirements. That codification may be useful in US-seated or US-enforcement matters where parties have challenged awards on the theory that a tribunal secretary improperly performed adjudicative functions or that the tribunal exceeded its powers. Clearer rules on the secretary’s role and obligations should help reduce the risk of challenges framed under Section 10(a)(4) of the FAA.

Finally, the 2026 Rules impose express confidentiality obligations on arbitrators, although they still do not create a default confidentiality rule for the parties. That distinction matters for US users because confidentiality is not automatically supplied by US law. The obligation on arbitrators may nevertheless help protect sensitive information, including in confirmation or vacatur proceedings, while parties that require broader confidentiality should incorporate such rules in their arbitration clauses, protective orders or procedural agreements.

Concluding observations

The 2026 amendments to the ICC Rules represent a meaningful effort to improve clarity and procedural efficiency in arbitration. For US parties, many changes make ICC arbitration look more familiar: early determination resembles dispositive-motion practice, removal of mandatory Terms of Reference aligns ICC procedure with US-administered arbitrations, and HEAP and expanded expedited procedures offer faster routes for appropriate disputes. The amendments also create practical choices to address at the drafting and case management stages, including whether to opt into HEAP, whether to require reasoned awards, how to preserve access to court-ordered interim relief, and how to structure confidentiality and disclosure protections. Parties adopting the 2026 ICC Rules should expect earlier case preparation, more active case management, and a broader set of procedural tools for tailoring the arbitral process to the nature and complexity of the dispute.

Footnotes

1. “ICC releases preliminary 2025 dispute resolution statistics,” dated Feb. 12, 2026 (ICC releases preliminary 2025 dispute resolution statistics - ICC - International Chamber of Commerce).
2. 2026 ICC Rules, Article 30 (https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2026/05/ICC_2026-Arbitration-Rules_2014-Mediation-Rules.pdf).
3. AAA Rules, R-34 (https://www.adr.org/media/ueonklrv/2026_commercial-arbitration-rules-mediation-procedures.pdf).
4. 2026 ICC Rules, Article 24(1) and 25 (https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2026/05/ICC_2026-Arbitration-Rules_2014-Mediation-Rules.pdf).
5. 2026 ICC Rules, Article 33 (https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2026/05/ICC_2026-Arbitration-Rules_2014-Mediation-Rules.pdf).
6. AAA Expedited Rules, E-7, E-9 (https://www.adr.org/media/ueonklrv/2026_commercial-arbitration-rules-mediation-procedures.pdf).
7. 2026 ICC Rules, Appendix IV, Article 1(2)(c). (https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2026/05/ICC_2026-Arbitration-Rules_2014-Mediation-Rules.pdf).
8. ICC Rules 2026, Appendix IV, Article 7(1).(https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2026/05/ICC_2026-Arbitration-Rules_2014-Mediation-Rules.pdf).