I. INTRODUCTION

1. The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has released its updated Arbitration Rules, which came into force on 1 June 2026 (the “2026 Rules”), succeeding the 2021 edition (the “2021 Rules”). They introduce targeted updates to procedural efficiency, tribunal governance, emergency relief, and the fee administration architecture.
2. The 2026 Rules arrive approximately 18 months after the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) released its 7th Edition Rules, which came into force on 1 January 2025 (the “SIAC Rules 2025”). Both sets of rules share a common reformist agenda — reducing time and cost, improving efficiency for disputes of varying complexity, and keeping pace with modern commercial practice. Read together, they illustrate the direction in which institutional arbitration is evolving globally.
3. This alert examines the principal changes introduced by the 2026 Rules, their implications for parties, counsel, and arbitrators, and, where the comparison is instructive, contrasts the ICC’s approach with the SIAC Rules 2025.

II. ABOLITION OF TERMS OF REFERENCE: THE MOST SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL CHANGE

4. The most consequential change in the 2026 Rules is that drawing up the Terms of Reference (“ToR”) is no longer mandatory. Until the 2021 Rules, the ToR were a mandatory prerequisite for ICC proceedings: a document listing, inter alia, the parties’ claims, issues and particulars of the applicable procedural rules. They were one of the most recognisable features of an ICC arbitration.^[1] Under the 2026 Rules, ToR are no longer mandatory, although tribunals retain discretion to use the same, or a similar procedural document, as a case management tool.
5. Article 24 of the 2026 Rules replaces that mandatory step with a more conventional case management model: an initial case management conference (“Initial CMC”) held within 30 days of the tribunal receiving the case file. The tribunal must establish a procedural timetable during the Initial CMC or as soon as possible thereafter. Article 24 also encourages further case management conferences where appropriate.
6. With the 2026 Rules, the ICC’s early-phase procedural framework becomes materially more aligned with the CMC-driven approach that arbitrations administered by SIAC and most other leading institutions have long employed. While the ToR were a well-intentioned instrument aimed at forcing the parties and the tribunal to distil the scope of the arbitration at an early stage and introduce efficiency, theprocess of negotiating and agreeing the ToR in contested cases frequently elongated the arbitration.^[2] It also provided a ready ground to set aside the award where a claim was not included in the ToR, and not explicitly authorised by the Tribunal thereafter.^[3] The ICC’s framework is now more familiar and immediately accessible to a global user base.

III. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES: A NEW TIERED ARCHITECTURE

7. Article 33 of the 2026 Rules introduces a new Highly Expedited Arbitration (“HEA”) procedure. The threshold for the pre-existing Expedited Procedure has also been increased.^[4] With these changes, both the ICC Rules 2026 and the SIAC Rules 2025 now operate two fast-track layers: a highly expedited (ICC) or streamlined track (SIAC) for the fastest cases, and an expedited track for broader application. However, the two institutions have adopted materially different designs. The table below sets out a side-by-side comparison of the ICC’s two tracks with SIAC’s two tracks across the criteria most relevant to parties selecting between them:

8. The HEA requirement that all parties expressly agree to its application may limit its practical utility. The disputes most suited to a sub-three-month, largely document-based arbitration — simple commercial debts, straightforward contractual breaches and low-value supply chain disputes — often arise from contracts where parties are not sophisticated enough to carefully tailor the arbitration clause. If the dispute resolution clause does not opt into the HEA procedure, a party is unlikely to obtain the other side’s agreement after the dispute has arisen.
9. SIAC’s Streamlined Procedure, as encapsulated in Rule 13 and Schedule 2 of the SIAC Rules 2025, addresses the same problem differently. It applies automatically where “the amount in dispute in the arbitration does not exceed the equivalent amount of S$1,000,000,” subject to the President determining otherwise on a party’s application, and it also contains a fee cap. That may make the SIAC model more effective for genuinely small-value disputes.

IV. EMERGENCY ARBITRATOR PROCEDURE REFORMED

10. The 2026 Rules significantly revise the emergency arbitrator regime. A key addition is the concept of “Preliminary Orders” under Article 7 of Appendix IV, which allows a party to seek an order, without prior notice to the other side, preventing any action that could undermine the emergency application. If the order is granted, the emergency arbitrator must immediately afford all other parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and the emergency arbitrator may modify the preliminary order.^[7] Further, the application for an emergency arbitration can now be made before, or at the same time as, or after the Request for Arbitration is submitted, provided the Secretariat receives it before the file is transmitted to the arbitral tribunal.^[8]
11. With these changes, ICC joins the growing group of institutions that offer urgent, without-notice emergency relief.^[9] The mechanism can be valuable where prior notice may defeat the purpose of the relief, such as in cases involving asset dissipation, destruction of evidence, misuse of confidential information, transfer of shares or calls on guarantees. However, a noteworthy point is that both the 2026 Rules and the SIAC Rules 2025 frame this form of urgent relief as an order, not an award. That is understandable given the due process concerns involved in without-notice relief. But it also means that such orders may have less immediate coercive force than court orders, where a breach can attract consequences such as contempt.

V. EARLY DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS AND DEFENCES

12. Article 30(1) of the 2026 Rules introduces an express early determination mechanism. A party may apply to the arbitral tribunal for early determination of one or more claims or defences on the ground that they are either manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
13. The 2021 Rules did not contain an express early determination provision. Tribunals could, in appropriate cases, rely on their general procedural powers under Article 22 of the 2021 Rules,^[10] but there was no standalone equivalent to Article 30 of the 2026 Rules. This express addition gives parties a clear procedural route to seek disposal of claims or defences that should not consume the time and cost of a full arbitration.
14. Many other institutional rules already provide such mechanisms.SIAC, for example, has two such mechanisms.^[11] First, Rule 47.1 of the SIAC Rules 2025 allows early dismissal where a claim or defence is manifestly without legal merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Second, SIAC also has a separate preliminary determination mechanism under Rule 46.1, which allows final and binding determination of an issue at a preliminary stage where the parties agree, where it is likely to save time and costs and contribute to efficient resolution, or where the circumstances otherwise warrant it.

VI. ARBITRATOR DISCLOSURE

15. The 2026 Rules also introduce material changes to make disclosures of conflicts of interest by arbitrators stronger. Article 12(2) now explicitly states that any doubts the prospective arbitrator may have about whether to make a disclosure shall be resolved in favour of disclosure. To assist prospective arbitrators and arbitrators in complying with their disclosure obligations, Article 12(5) also now requires each party to submit to the Secretariat a list of persons and entities which they believe the prospective arbitrators and arbitrators should consider and the reasons thereof. To protect against frivolous challenges arising out of broader disclosures, Article 12(4) provides that a disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality.
16. For arbitrators, the rule encourages broader disclosure. For parties, it reduces the risk of late challenges based on relationships that ought to have been identified earlier. Conflict checks are only as good as the information available to the arbitrator. In complex corporate groups, relevant relationships may extend beyond the named parties to parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, funders, insurers, key witnesses, experts and other project participants. Article 12(5) obligates the parties to identify those persons and entities early. As a result, in-house counsel(s) would need to conduct more detailed internal corporate mapping at the start of arbitration.

VII. TRIBUNAL SECRETARIES: EXPRESS CODIFICATION AND ENHANCED GOVERNANCE

17. Article 44 of the 2026 Rules, for the first time, expressly codifies the role of tribunal secretaries. This follows on the heels of SIAC doing the same last year. Itprovides that, after consulting the parties, the tribunal may appoint a tribunal secretary to work under its direction and control. The provision also makes clear that the tribunal may not delegate its decision-making authority. Tribunal secretaries must satisfy the same independence, impartiality and confidentiality requirements as arbitrators, and must sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence before appointment.
18. The 2026 Rules also address the cost concern. The tribunal may claim reimbursement of a tribunal secretary’s reasonable and justified expenses, but the appointment of a tribunal secretary should not create any additional financial burden on the parties.^[12] Direct fee arrangements between the tribunal and the parties for tribunal secretary fees are prohibited.
19. This codification is useful for parties and arbitrators. It recognises that tribunal secretaries can assist with efficient case administration, especially in complex arbitrations, while also drawing a clear line between administrative assistance and adjudicatory decision-making. It also controls the financial dynamics more tightly – an important concern for parties who are already bearing tribunal fees.

VIII. CONCLUSION

20. The 2026 Rules also contain several other changes that are promising. When appointing arbitrators, Article 14(1) now expressly requires the prospective arbitrator’s experience and expertise to be considered; this may place greater weight on sector-specific expertise as a formal selection criterion. Article 34 of the 2026 Rules has also removed the old six-month time limit for issuing an award, in line with the fact that this default time limit was rarely applied;^[13] and Article 3 of the 2026 Rules also places greater emphasis on electronic communications.
21. Taken together with the SIAC Rules 2025, the 2026 Rules signal increasing convergence in global institutional arbitration practice towards procedural tiering, stronger emergency relief, more active case management and greater transparency. At the same time, the ICC and SIAC have not taken identical approaches. Parties selecting institutional rules for their future contracts — and counsel advising them — should carefully assess which institution’s approach best fits the nature, scale, and risk profile of their transactions.
22. We will continue to monitor the implementation of the 2026 Rules and any guidance notes or practice directions issued by the ICC Secretariat.