Overview of the new ICC Arbitration Rules: Key changes – Episode 1

Welcome to the first episode of our special three-part podcast series exploring the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules. Join Jack Hobbs, Associate at Clarkslegal, and Christopher Howitt, Barrister at Three Stone, as they break down the most significant reforms to one of the world’s leading sets of arbitration rules. Discover expert insights into how these changes are set to make arbitration more efficient, flexible, and transparent and what they mean for practitioners, clients, and the future of international dispute resolution.

Key topics discussed include:

• The ICC’s evolving role in global arbitration 
• Abolition of mandatory terms of reference 
• Expanded expedited procedures, including the new highly expedited process 
• Early determination tools for swift dismissal of weak claims or defences 
• Enhanced emergency arbitrator powers, including preliminary and ex parte orders 
• Stronger duties of independence, impartiality, and transparency for arbitrators and tribunal secretaries 
• Embracing digitalisation: electronic communication, signatures, and awards 
• Broader improvements in case management and efficiency

Stay tuned for the next episodes, where we take a closer look at expedited procedures and practical takeaways for practitioners.

For more information or to discuss any of the topics from this episode, please contact Jack Hobbs or Christopher Howitt, who would be delighted to assist you.

Transcript

Jack Hobbs   00:06
 Welcome everybody. Welcome to the first in a short series of podcasts on the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026. I'm Jack Hobbs. I'm an associate in the dispute resolution team at Clarkslegal, and I'm joined by Christopher Howitt of Three Stone Buildings. Chris specialises in international disputes and commercial arbitration, and I've been fortunate enough to work with him a number of times over the years. So, Chris, welcome. 

Christopher Howitt  00:35
Good morning, Jack. Thank you for having me. 

Jack Hobbs   00:37
 Great to see you. So, before we dive into the nitty gritty of the new rules, Chris, you're very experienced in a range of arbitration rules across the globe. Before we go into the detail, where does the ICC sit for you in the market of current offerings of arbitration institutions?

Christopher Howitt  01:00
 Well, the ICC remains one of the top institutions, if not the top. As you know, litigating parties will choose which rules will apply to their arbitration. So, you have, you know, for example, in London you have the LCIA, in Hong Kong the HKIAC, you have the ICDR and of course in Singapore the SEAC. These often for international cases compete with each other for business. They want people arbitrating under their rules. The ICC has tended to be slightly more hands-on and dare I say it, bureaucratic compared to other institutions. And what I think we see in these rules is an attempt really to help parties get to quicker awards, have more streamlined procedures and get rid of some of the bureaucracy, which might have been a turn off for those that were happier litigating under the more lean institutions like the LCIA.

Jack Hobbs   01:59
 Yeah, and I suppose with increased bureaucracy comes increased costs, and it's been in the legal media quite a lot recently about how arbitration hasn't lived up to its initial sales pitch of increasing the efficiency in which parties can obtain an award and a resolution to their disputes and being able to do it at a more reasonable cost. So, these rules, they came into force on the 1st of June. They replaced the 2021 rules. To be expected, it's very common for arbitration institutions to update their rules, but these ones, Chris, they, it's not just an updating and you know, putting a full stop or a comma in here or there. There are elements which you know, you'd say are a major overhaul in the rules. 

Christopher Howitt  02:49
Yeah, these rules, they're not tinkering around the edges. We have some far-reaching changes here and some new procedures, some expedited procedures, which are here for the first time. So yeah, it's very interesting for practitioners, very interesting for clients and we see various ways in which they're expanding the toolkit of things that people are litigating under the rules can use. 

Jack Hobbs   03:13
Expanding the toolkit, it's a lovely way of putting it. So, in this podcast, we're going to do a high level run through of those key changes with some further detail to be provided in the later podcasts in the series. And the first change I want to talk about, Chris, is the abolition of the mandatory terms of reference. So, this may divide practitioners somewhat. I certainly sit in the camp of, I'm not sad to see the back of the terms of reference, and it will just make the initial CCMC become that bit more important. But Chris, where do you sit in relation to not having to use the terms of reference every time you go through one of these proceedings?

Christopher Howitt  03:49
I think I'm like you, Jack. I don't mourn the loss of the terms of reference. I think quite often they are a formality and a distraction in cases. I think we both litigate under different rules where they don't have a terms of reference. We don't think, oh gosh, I wish there was a terms of reference in this case. I think really this is facing up to reality, which is that they're not actually an important document in the life of an arbitration. But of course, as you say, now the real focus at the start of the case will be on that initial CMC, and which will focus everyone's minds to make sure that they've got their ducks in a row for that. 

Jack Hobbs   04:26
And I suppose for those few practitioners that are... that are sat mourning the loss of the terms of reference, they can still be used if they wish. You know, it's always been the approach of arbitration to offer the most bespoke process it can to the parties and for those practitioners who do believe that the particular dispute before them can be best served by the inclusion of the terms of reference in the procedure, then it's still an option in the toolkit, as you say.

So, moving on, the next few points that we're going to talk about are a rule of push towards the efficiency of the arbitral procedure offering by the ICC. So, the first one is the expedited procedure, which is nothing new in and of itself. Chris and I have been fortunate enough to actually work on one of these together in recent years. But the big change with that is the increased threshold from 3 million to 4 million. Is it going to produce more cases? It's still yet to be seen. The previous sets of rules increased the threshold from two to three. So, this is very much an expected change. But Chris, do we think more cases, just the inevitability of having a higher threshold, are going to fall into this category now? 

Christopher Howitt  05:42
I mean, I think so. The increase is from 3 million to 4 million, which I think was slightly ahead of inflation. And of course, people can opt out of this process if they choose. We'll see how it plays out. I would think we will see this automatically covering more cases than it would have done in the past. Yeah, we'll see if people are happy to continue under that process.

Jack Hobbs   06:05
And as you say, people can opt out, but people can also opt in. So the ICC have seen values of claims far in excess of the previous threshold, being the parties deciding to opt into the expedited procedure, and that illustrates a demand for these expedited procedures within the rules. Which is why coming on to the next point, the ICC have introduced the new highly expedited arbitration procedure, for want of a better name, sticking highly at the start of it. But it does exactly what it says on the tin, doesn't it, Chris? I mean, an award within three months. It's very similar to the streamlined procedure under the Singapore International Arbitration Rules. And my view is I think it will be a welcome addition to litigants, parties looking to use the ultra process. 

Christopher Howitt  06:55
I agree. I think it's a fantastic procedure and will be very useful for the appropriate case. I'm thinking of simple debt claims, cases that aren't factually complex, cases that turn on one or more very limited points of law. These are perfect for this kind of procedures and the prospect of getting an award within three months, which is what is contemplated under rules, is very attractive. 

Jack Hobbs   07:22
Yeah, certainly a lot more attractive than the alternative at the moment. 

Christopher Howitt  07:25
Beats 3 years.

Jack Hobbs   07:27
Indeed, indeed. So again, with the string of changes that are designed to improve efficiency of the process are the new early determination mechanisms, and these allow parties to seek the swift dismissal of weak claims or defences early in proceedings. So, they're akin to strikeout and summary judgement applications that everyone will be familiar with. Chris, it's something that has been available to parties, but not necessarily within the rules expressly. A useful tool that we'll see a lot, or will this be something still used sparingly?

Christopher Howitt  08:08
It's very welcome that it's been added to the rules. Of course, this has existed under other rules already in the past. In my experience in practises that arbitrators can be very reluctant to go under these determination processes. I think because there's a deep seated inclination to allow parties to put their case at trial. And of course, there are sensitivities about having an award that might be challenged or other such concerns. I think in the hands of a confident arbitrator, this would be a very attractive thing to pursue. We'll just have to see in practise how people warm to it. 

Jack Hobbs   08:56
Absolutely, absolutely. So, moving on to the next one, enhanced emergency arbitration. So emergency arbitrators can now issue preliminary orders, preventing parties frustrating the purpose of the emergency application and a request for a preliminary order can be made and decided upon without notice to all the parties and the ex parte nature of a preliminary order provides protection in circumstances when the release sought could be undermined by advance notice. Chris, something that has existed, but do we think it will be used more in the future? 

Christopher Howitt  07:25
Again, as you say, it has it has existed, but it wasn't codified and it was used fairly sparingly in my experience. Now, of course, it's expressly provided, and I think this is one more example of the IC expanding that toolkit of things that it's things that litigating parties can do. I'd like to see this used fairly often where it's appropriate in future. We'll see, see how parties make use of it. 

Jack Hobbs   10:00
And I suppose that's in the same vein as the rules around ex parte emergency relief now being available, where it hadn't always been expressly available in the past. Another tool for the toolkit? 

Christopher Howitt  10:12
Quite right.

Jack Hobbs   10:14
And then that leads us on to some of the final, more smaller amendments in the overhaul of these 2026 ICC arbitration rules. And that would be stronger arbitration duties, so independence, impartiality, obligations, etc. Chris, already a custom practice, not really changing much on a day-to-day of an arbitration, but still a welcome change nonetheless.

Christopher Howitt  10:39
I think it's a welcome change. I mean, this relates to arbitrators disclosing their conflicts of interest. I think the practise generally is to disclose as much as you can because you don't want to be challenged. But here it puts beyond doubt in the rules that when you are in doubt as an arbitrator, you must disclose. Clear this move towards transparency is welcome. 

Jack Hobbs   11:02
And this move towards transparency, the same approach with the increased obligations on tribunal secretaries? 

Christopher Howitt  11:09
Again, this is a welcome change. The role of tribunal secretaries is well established. Everyone knows what they do and what part they play. Under the ICC rules, their role was only really addressed by a practise note. And of course, now we have their role in the rules itself. And for example, they must satisfy the same duties of independence and impartiality as the arbitrators. Again, will it change much? I don't know, but it is good to have it there in the rules. 

Jack Hobbs   11:38
Yeah, indeed, I totally agree. So just a few final comments on the general improvements in case management. There are other smaller changes, such as a default use of electronic communication and electronic signatures and awards, which are all aimed at this overall theme of increasing efficiency in the arbitral process. Chris, that's all I have to say on the sort of the high level of the key changes. Was there anything you wanted to add in whilst you have the floor? 

Christopher Howitt  12:07
No, I don't think so, but clearly the themes that are coming out from this are the ICC trying to find ways to allow parties to get to an award that bit quicker and also just getting up to date, as it were, with the reality of practise where it comes to terms of reference and digital documents and electronic signatures and so forth. So yeah, there's a lot in there.  

Jack Hobbs   12:31
Indeed. So, thank you everyone for listening. There are two podcasts in the series after this. The first is going to be about the expedited procedures that Chris and I have spoken about, and the second will be about practical takeaways for practitioners, and we hope you can join us for both of those. Thank you very much. Goodbye.

Christopher Howitt  12:51
Thanks very much, Jack. Goodbye.