New ICC Rules entering into force on 1 June 2026

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has approved the new version of its Arbitration Rules (ICC Rules), which will enter into force on 1 June 2026, replacing the 2021 version.

The amendments introduced by the ICC Rules aim to make arbitral proceedings more accessible, efficient, flexible and digitalized, removing certain rules historically typical of ICC proceedings which, however, have often led to excessive rigidity and formalism in the arbitral process.

Below are the main innovations that will be introduced by the new ICC Rules. Their actual impact and the degree of appeal that the new rules will have for parties will necessarily have to be tested in practice, by periodically monitoring the application of the new Rules.

Ultra expedited” procedure

A major innovation is the introduction of a new highly simplified arbitral procedure allowing an award to be rendered in only three months.

This is an optional mechanism, the adoption of which is left to the parties’ discretion on an “opt-in” basis, designed to resolve particularly urgent disputes requiring a purely documentary evidentiary phase for decision-making purposes.

According to the new ICC Rules, the main features of this new procedure will include:

• a decision based solely on documents, without the need to schedule a hearing
• the possibility for the Court to issue an unreasoned award containing only the operative part
• the prohibition of consolidation of proceedings
• the obligation for the parties to immediately submit all defences and evidence, according to the immediate disclosure mechanism typical of common law systems

This procedure could prove particularly attractive for sectors where speed is crucial, such as cryptocurrency disputes, filling a gap that even national procedural systems have rarely addressed. Interesting applications could also emerge in documentary corporate disputes.

At the same time, the ultra-expedited procedure presents evident limitations in the case of complex disputes requiring broader evidentiary proceedings, while also leaving very limited room for adversarial debate.

Increase of the maximum threshold for access to expedited proceedings

The “traditional” expedited procedure already included in the previous Rules will also be amended by the new ICC Rules.

In particular, the threshold for access to such procedure will increase from USD 3 million to USD 4 million, reflecting the growing use of these mechanisms also in disputes of relatively high value.

At first glance, however, the innovative impact of this increase appears rather limited, since many disputes of significant – though not exceptional – value will still remain excluded from expedited proceedings, making the cost-benefit analysis potentially favour recourse to state courts or to more flexible and less expensive arbitral mechanisms.

More flexible time limits for awards

A clear formalistic aspect that will be removed by the new ICC Rules concerns the deadline for rendering the arbitral award, currently set at six months from the establishment of the arbitral tribunal.

Under the new Rules, the President of the ICC Court will determine, on a case-by-case basis, the time limit for issuing the award.

While this innovation may provide greater procedural flexibility, there is also a risk that, in practice, it could negatively affect the predictability of arbitral timelines, a feature which has so far made ICC arbitration particularly appealing.

End of mandatory terms of reference

Another particularly innovative feature concerns the Terms of Reference, namely the ex ante determination of the procedural timetable.

Under the new ICC Rules, the drafting of the Terms of Reference will no longer be mandatory, eliminating one of the hallmark principles of ICC arbitration.

Also in this case, it will be necessary to closely monitor how this innovation will operate in practice. On the one hand, it may certainly make proceedings more streamlined and flexible, in line with regulations already adopted by other arbitral institutions, while also accelerating several key procedural steps (for example, the deadline for introducing new claims or evidentiary requests), thereby benefiting procedural timing and due process.

On the other hand, this innovation may also make ICC arbitral practice particularly fragmented, undermining legal certainty and introducing significant differences among proceedings in terms of duration and procedural structure.

Objective: full digitalization

The new ICC Rules also introduce a strong push towards digitalization by providing that, as a general rule, all communications and documents shall be managed electronically.

In the same direction, arbitral tribunals may also sign awards digitally, although hard copies will remain available where necessary for subsequent formalities (e.g. enforcement proceedings).

Once again, the new Rules aim to overcome an evident anachronism that has characterized the ICC framework until now.

Towards greater transparency on conflicts of interest

The new ICC Rules also introduce a significant innovation in terms of transparency, particularly regarding the early disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

Under the new Rules, parties will be required from the outset of the proceedings to disclose all relevant entities connected to the dispute, in order to facilitate arbitrators’ independence checks.

This innovation, by forcing parties to immediately disclose the actual centres of interest involved in the proceedings, may also have practical benefits in anticipating broader disclosure obligations at the initial stage of the arbitration.

No automatic confidentiality

With a clear policy choice, the new ICC Rules have decided not to introduce a default confidentiality regime, leaving the issue to the parties’ agreement or to the arbitral tribunal’s determination on a case-by-case basis, unlike what is already provided under other arbitral regulations.

The impact of the new ICC Rules on arbitration clauses and existing contracts

The entry into force of the new ICC Rules also requires immediate reflection from a contractual standpoint, particularly regarding the drafting of arbitration clauses contained in existing contracts.

While, for contracts entered into after the entry into force of the new Rules, the legal framework is significantly simplified by the automatic application of the new ICC Rules, the situation is different for contracts already in force that expressly refer to the 2021 ICC Rules, given that the new Rules will apply exclusively to requests for arbitration filed on or after 1 June 2026.

In such cases, the parties will need to assess the opportunity to amend their contractual provisions and carry out an overall evaluation of the quality of the arbitration clause itself, potentially introducing an arbitration clause expressly referring to the 2026 ICC Rules so that future disputes may benefit from the innovations introduced by the new framework.

A pathological arbitration clause (ambiguous as to seat, arbitral institution, number of arbitrators or applicable law) generates procedural objections at the very first stage of the arbitration and may result in 12–18 months of litigation before the merits are even addressed. The review of these clauses is independent from the entry into force of the new Rules, but this is an appropriate time to address the issue in light of the growing use of arbitration in international commercial practice. Standard arbitration clauses drafted in generic terms such as “ICC arbitration under the Rules in force” deserve preventive review in order to avoid unintended consequences arising from the entry into force of the new Rules and the automatic application of procedural rules different from those originally contemplated.

Ultimately, the introduction of the new ICC Rules once again highlights that the arbitration clause included in contracts should not be regarded as a standard provision, but rather as a strategic clause to be carefully tailored in light of the specific interests pursued by the parties.

The programmatic intention of the new ICC Rules is clear: to modernize proceedings, make them more accessible and more tailor-made to the needs of each specific case, with a particular focus on urgent disputes.

On the other hand, some historical criticisms of ICC arbitration remain unresolved – at least on paper – including, among others, the cost of access to this form of dispute resolution and a certain rigidity in accessing simplified proceedings.