By Olivia Holl
The updated International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) Arbitration Rules (the “2026 Rules”) entered into force as of 1 June 2026, reflecting the continuing commitment of the ICC International Court of Arbitration to safeguarding the legitimacy, transparency and efficiency of the arbitral process. The revisions, unveiled in a six-part series, represent a significant procedural recalibration designed to streamline case management while strengthening the integrity of the arbitral framework.
For legal practitioners, state-owned enterprises (“SOEs”), and corporate counsel across Africa, where cross border disputes are increasingly common, these changes provide a roadmap for the future of international dispute resolution. This article breaks down the most salient features of the 2026 Rules, focusing on arbitrator disclosure, the abolition of mandatory Terms of Reference, and the expanded scope of expedited and emergency provisions.
Arbitrator Disclosure: When in Doubt, Disclose
The independence and impartiality of arbitrators remain the bedrock of the arbitral process. The 2026 Rules retain the existing disclosure standard found in Article 12(2), requiring prospective arbitrators to disclose any facts or circumstances that might call into question their independence in the eyes of the parties. However, the revision introduces two critical clarifications by elevating existing practice to the level of the Rules themselves.
First, Article 12(2) now explicitly resolves any doubt in favour of disclosure, stating that any doubts the prospective arbitrator may have about whether to make a disclosure shall be resolved in favour of disclosure. Second, Article 12(4) confirms that a disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality. These provisions encourage prompt and full disclosure while reassuring arbitrators that disclosure alone is not an admission of conflict.
A particularly innovative change is the structured mechanism for party engagement. Article 12(5) requires that at the time of filing their Request or Answer, each party must submit to the Secretariat a list of persons and entities which they believe the prospective arbitrators should consider, along with the reasons for that consideration. This list is incorporated into the case information document transmitted to the prospective arbitrator, allowing parties to raise potential points at an early stage and reducing the risk of late-stage conflicts. The arbitrator remains ultimately responsible for the final disclosure decision.
Moving Beyond Mandatory Terms of Reference
One of the most significant procedural changes in the 2026 Rules is the removal of mandatory Terms of Reference in standard ICC Arbitration proceedings. Historically, Terms of Reference served to confirm consent to arbitrate and record procedural agreements, but under the 2021 Rules, extensions for their preparation were frequently granted. Under the 2026 Rules, Terms of Reference are no longer a necessary step.
Instead, the initial Case Management Conference, which remains mandatory under Article 24, assumes a more significant role. The procedural timetable established at the initial Case Management Conference will be communicated to the ICC Secretariat rather than the Court, while institutional monitoring remains robust. In practice, arbitral tribunals may wish to record key elements such as the identification of the parties, confirmation of jurisdiction, and the applicable law in the foundational document, Procedural Order No. 1 (“PO1”). The ICC Secretariat is currently working on a model PO1 to assist tribunals.
A related change concerns the introduction of new claims. Following the initial Case Management Conference, no party may introduce new claims without the authorisation of the arbitral tribunal. When determining whether to authorise such claims, the arbitral tribunal shall consider the nature of the new claims, the stage of the proceedings, any cost implications, and any other relevant circumstances. The express inclusion of cost implications as a relevant factor under Article 25 reflects the ICC’s continued emphasis on cost effectiveness.
Furthermore, Article 34 replaces the longstanding default six-month time limit calculated from the last signature of the Terms of Reference with a system where the President of the ICC Court fixes the time limit for the final award based on the procedural timetable. This provides greater predictability for parties as to when the final award will be issued.
Expedited and Emergency Provisions: Raising the Threshold and Expanding Access
The 2026 Rules also bring significant updates to the Expedited Procedure Provisions and the Emergency Arbitration provisions. The Expedited Procedure framework, which includes a default sole arbitrator, a six-month award timeline, shorter procedural timelines, and lower costs, remains unchanged. However, the monetary threshold for the automatic application of the Expedited Procedure Provisions increases to USD 4 million, this adjustment broadens the range of disputes eligible for expedited arbitration. Parties retain the autonomy to opt in or out of the Expedited Procedure Provisions regardless of the amount in dispute.
The 2026 Rules introduce crucial clarifications for Emergency Arbitration. Article 29 and Appendix V now expressly provide that Emergency Arbitration applications may be initiated against parties that are signatories to the arbitration agreement, their successors, or any party for which the President is satisfied, based on information in the Application, that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist. This amendment recognises the realities of modern international trade, allowing the President of the ICC Court to grant urgent interim relief against non-signatories on a prima faciebasis, while preserving the arbitral tribunal’s final authority on jurisdiction.
For the first time, the 2026 Rules expressly acknowledge preliminary orders. A party may request a preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the application. Where circumstances so require, such requests may be made ex parte, without notice to the other parties, to address urgent risks such as asset dissipation or destruction of evidence. Procedural safeguards are built in, as the emergency arbitrator must immediately afford all other parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case if a preliminary order is granted, reinforcing due process protections.
The Horizon
For legal practitioners, in house counsel, and SOEs operating across Africa, where infrastructure, energy, and telecommunications disputes are on the rise, these changes offer a more flexible, transparent, and efficient arbitral framework. The emphasis on early party input through disclosure lists and the removal of mandatory Terms of Reference align ICC practice with the needs of modern commercial parties, namely speed, predictability, and reduced formalism. Meanwhile, the expanded emergency arbitrator powers ensure that urgent relief remains effective even in complex, multi-partyarrangements. As the ICC Court continues to modernise, the 2026 Rules represent not merely an update, but a strategic evolution to meet the demands of global dispute resolution.
Anti-Fraud & Corruption Law in Africa 