What Changes Under the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules? Three Key Developments

Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure

This is one of the major innovations of the new Arbitration Rules. Introduced in Article 33, it requires the parties to agree that the arbitration will be conducted under this procedure, in accordance with the applicable provisions of Appendix VI on highly expedited arbitration.

This reform differs from the ordinary expedited procedure that already existed in 2021. At that time, the procedure was governed by Article 30 and Appendix VI of the 2021 Rules. Under the new Rules, the ordinary expedited procedure is governed by Article 32 and Appendix V, while the new highly expedited procedure is introduced in Article 33 and the new Appendix VI.

The rules governing regular arbitration apply to highly expedited arbitration, subject to the special modifications set out in Appendix VI.

Likewise, the highly expedited procedure will cease to apply if all parties agree or if the ICC Court, on its own initiative or at the request of a party or the tribunal, so decides after consulting those concerned¹. In that event, the Court determines whether the arbitration will continue under the ordinary expedited procedure or the standard procedure.

How is this procedure commenced? The claimant must submit the request for arbitration together with its complete statement of claim, including the legal grounds, facts, relief sought², and, to the extent possible, all evidence supporting its case³.

The respondent must provide certain procedural information within twenty (20) days and submit its answer, defense, and any counterclaim within thirty (30) days. Any reply to the counterclaim must be submitted within the following twenty (20) days⁴.

The time limits at this stage may not be extended unless the parties agree. This design seeks to prevent the case from being developed gradually and requires the parties’ substantive positions to be defined from the outset.

Joinder of additional parties and consolidation with other arbitrations are not permitted. The dispute must be decided by a sole arbitrator, jointly nominated within twenty (20) days after the respondent receives the request for arbitration and statement of claim. If the parties do not agree, the Court appoints the arbitrator directly⁵, and the time limit for challenging the arbitrator is reduced to seven (7) days⁶.

Although these restrictions sacrifice a degree of procedural flexibility, they seek to preserve the speed of the procedure and prevent it from acquiring the complexity associated with multi-party or multi-contract arbitrations.

Once constituted, the tribunal must hold the initial case management conference within seven (7) days after receiving the file. At that conference, the tribunal may exclude document production, limit the number and length of submissions and witness or expert evidence, and even decide, after consulting the parties, that the dispute will be resolved solely on the documents, without a hearing or examination of witnesses or experts⁷.

Finally, the award must be issued within three (3) months after the initial case management conference⁸, unless the President of the Court grants an extension. The parties may also agree that the award need not state reasons, and the time limits for requesting correction, interpretation, or an additional award are considerably shorter than under the ordinary procedure.

Ultimately, the procedure is designed for clearly defined disputes involving manageable evidence and parties willing to waive certain procedural stages. Party consent is essential because the system reduces customary procedural opportunities and places a significant burden on the initial submissions. Nevertheless, although speed is prioritized, the tribunal remains responsible for ensuring equal treatment, due process, and a reasonable opportunity for each party to present its case.

Early Determination

Article 30 expressly introduces Early Determination, a mechanism that had no equivalent provision in the 2021 Arbitration Rules.

This procedural mechanism allows a party to request that the arbitral tribunal decide one or more claims or defenses at an early stage when they are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

When the Rules use the term “manifestly,” they require more than a strong likelihood that the claim or defense will fail. The absence of merit or jurisdiction must be clear and capable of determination without reproducing the entire proceeding. This mechanism is therefore especially suitable for predominantly legal issues or matters requiring limited evidence.

The application does not automatically open a separate procedural phase. The tribunal has discretion to decide whether it may proceed and, only if it allows the application to continue, establishes the procedural measures it considers appropriate after consulting the parties⁹.

Article 30 does not prescribe a deadline for filing the application, a mandatory number of submissions, a hearing, or a specific time limit for the decision.

This flexibility permits the procedure to be tailored to the case, but requires the tribunal to protect due process and prevent the application from being used to delay the arbitration, since it must decide the matter as soon as possible in light of its nature¹⁰.

The decision may take the form of an award or a procedural order, depending on the issue to be resolved. For example, a decision that finally resolves all or part of the parties’ dispute will take the form of an award, whereas a decision rejecting an early determination application will be issued as a procedural order¹¹.

When deciding the application, the tribunal may rule on the costs generated by the incident or reserve that decision for a later stage¹². When the decision takes the form of an award, it will be subject to scrutiny by the ICC Court¹³.

Appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal Secretary

For the first time, the new Arbitration Rules expressly regulate the tribunal secretary. Although the 2021 Rules contained no specific provisions on this role, tribunal secretaries assisting arbitral tribunals were already common in arbitration practice.

The tribunal may appoint a secretary after consulting the parties, but must at all times retain direction and control of the proceedings and may not delegate any decision-making authority¹⁴.

The secretary therefore performs a subordinate role and may not replace the arbitrators in forming their judgment or decide issues concerning jurisdiction, admissibility of evidence, procedural measures, liability, quantification of claims, costs, or the content of the award.

Before appointment, the secretary must sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality, and independence and is subject to the same duties of independence, impartiality, and confidentiality as the arbitrators¹⁵. Article 44, however, does not expressly establish a challenge procedure equivalent to that applicable to arbitrators.

Appendix III on arbitration costs provides that appointing a secretary must not impose an additional financial burden on the parties. Agreements concerning the secretary’s fees, whether between the tribunal and the secretary or between the tribunal and the parties, are prohibited. The only exception is reimbursement of reasonable and duly justified expenses incurred by the secretary¹⁶.

The reforms introduced by the 2026 ICC Rules thus reflect a trend toward faster and more efficient proceedings without dispensing with fundamental due-process guarantees.

The highly expedited procedure, early determination, and express regulation of tribunal secretaries seek to reduce procedural time, strengthen case management, and provide greater certainty regarding established practices. Together, these changes broaden the procedural tools available to adapt arbitration to the needs of each dispute while maintaining a balance between speed, flexibility, and effective protection of the parties’ rights.