New ICC Arbitration Rules: What Faster Proceedings Mean for Business

Understanding the Changes, Commercial Implications, and What to Consider Before Filing

The International Chamber of Commerce’s 2026 Arbitration Rules took effect on June 1, 2026, introducing changes that businesses should consider before commencing international arbitration. The 2026 Rules generally apply to proceedings commenced on or after that date, unless the parties have agreed to apply an earlier edition. They may therefore apply to disputes arising under contracts signed years before they took effect.

One significant development is the expansion of accelerated arbitration. The ICC has broadened access to its existing expedited procedure and introduced a separate, highly expedited procedure that requires the parties’ agreement. These changes offer businesses additional ways to obtain an award more quickly, but also require careful decisions about preparation, evidence, and procedural strategy.

For companies considering either expedited procedure, the question is not simply how quickly an award might be obtained. It is whether a faster procedure will serve their business interests without compromising their ability to present and prove their case effectively.

What Has Changed?

The 2026 Rules introduce a range of reforms, including an express mechanism for early determination of manifestly unmeritorious claims or defenses and changes to emergency arbitration. Among the most significant changes are those relating to expedited arbitration. These changes are particularly important from both a strategic and commercial perspective, as they may influence how businesses approach a dispute, allocate resources, and assess the value of an earlier resolution. Two developments are especially relevant: the expansion of the existing expedited procedure and the introduction of a new, highly expedited procedure.

1.   Broader access to the existing expedited procedure

The ICC’s Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP) are not new. They provide a streamlined framework with a six-month deadline for the final award, running from the initial case management conference and subject to extension. The principal change is an increase in the monetary threshold for automatic application to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after June 1, 2026. Automatic application remains subject to opt-outs and the ICC Court’s assessment of suitability.

Earlier agreements retain their applicable thresholds: USD 3 million for agreements concluded from January 1, 2021, to May 31, 2026, and USD 2 million for those concluded from March 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020. The parties may also agree to use the expedited procedure outside its automatic scope.

Under this procedure, the ICC Court may appoint a sole arbitrator even if the arbitration agreement provides for three. The dispute may therefore be decided by one arbitrator rather than the three-member tribunal the parties envisaged when entering into the contract.

After consulting the parties, the arbitral tribunal may also streamline the proceedings. For example, it may limit the number and length of written submissions and the written evidence presented, or decide not to allow requests for documents from the other party. Where appropriate, it may decide the dispute on the written record alone, without a hearing or the examination of witnesses or experts.

2.   A new, highly expedited procedure

The Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP) introduce a distinct option: proceedings before a sole arbitrator with a three-month deadline for the final award, running from the initial case management conference and subject to extension. Unlike the existing expedited procedure, HEAP requires all parties’ express agreement and has no monetary ceiling.

The procedure is accelerated from the outset. The claimant must submit its statement of claim together with its request for arbitration, accompanied, to the extent possible, by supporting evidence. The respondent must submit its answer and statement of defense, including any counterclaim, within 30 days of receiving the request and statement of claim.

The arbitrator may restrict document production and further submissions, and may decide the case without an oral hearing. Joinder of additional parties and consolidation of arbitrations are not permitted.

The distinction matters: the new Rules do not place every ICC arbitration on a three-month timetable. They expand the circumstances in which expedited arbitration may apply and create a separate, consent-based route for particularly rapid resolution.

What Does This Mean for Businesses?

The opportunity is not merely to shorten proceedings, but to consider how the dispute-resolution process can support the company’s business objectives. That assessment should address four practical issues.

1.   Earlier certainty can support business decisions

A company may need a disputed contractual issue resolved to move forward with a project, assess its financial exposure, or decide whether to continue a commercial relationship. In such cases, an earlier determination may have value beyond the amount awarded.

The deadlines for rendering an award under both expedited procedures may be extended. Time may also pass between the issuance of an award and actual payment. Companies should therefore consider the likely route to recovery before commencing proceedings, rather than assume that a faster award will necessarily mean faster payment.

2.   Preparation must begin before filing

Both expedited procedures operate on tight timetables, while HEAP also requires substantive pleadings at the outset. Early preparation is therefore particularly important when considering either route. As far as possible, evidence should be gathered and organized, legal arguments developed, and witnesses identified before proceedings begin, rather than as the arbitration progresses.

For management, this means allocating internal resources and establishing decision-making authority early. An accelerated timetable will be difficult to use effectively if commercial instructions, document collection, or settlement approvals move more slowly than the proceedings.

3.   Shorter proceedings may reduce costs but require earlier expenditure

The arbitrator fee scale to expedited proceedings is lower than the scale for ordinary ICC proceedings. This does not necessarily mean, however, that an expedited arbitration will be less expensive overall. We recommend budgeting for concentrated early expenditure on counsel, experts, and internal teams. The relevant comparison is not simply one of speed versus cost. The key question, rather, is whether the anticipated reduction in time and uncertainty justifies the resources required at the outset.

4.   Complexity matters more than value alone

The complexity of the dispute, rather than its value alone, is an important consideration when assessing whether either expedited procedure is suitable. In both procedures, the tribunal may streamline the proceedings, including by deciding the dispute without document production or an oral hearing.

We recommend assessing where the evidence is located and what will be needed to prove the case. A documented payment dispute may be a stronger candidate than a smaller dispute requiring extensive expert analysis or access to the opposing party’s records.

For projects involving multiple parties, joinder and consolidation also require careful consideration. HEAP does not permit the joinder of additional parties or the consolidation of arbitrations. The advantage of a faster decision should therefore be weighed against the risk that related disputes will need to be resolved in separate proceedings.

What Should Companies Check Before Commencing ICC Proceedings?

A pre-filing review should address:

• Applicable rules and eligibility. Check both the agreed edition of the Rules and the date of the arbitration agreement. Commencing proceedings under the 2026 Rules does not, by itself, make the new USD 4 million threshold applicable to an older agreement.
• Consent and procedural suitability. Identify any expedited-procedure opt-out and whether all parties have agreed, or might agree, to HEAP.
• Complexity of the dispute. Assess potential counterclaims, related contracts, and additional parties that may be necessary to resolve the dispute before choosing the procedural route.
• Readiness and resources. Confirm that the evidence, damages analysis, legal budget, and internal team can support an intensive timetable.
• Urgent protection and recovery. Consider whether interim measures are needed and where any eventual award would need to be enforced.

Bottom Line: Early Preparation Can Save Future Resources

The ICC’s new Rules offer an opportunity to align arbitration more closely with business needs. A faster procedure should, however, be chosen because it suits the dispute, not simply because it offers the shortest timetable.

For companies preparing to commence an ICC arbitration, procedural strategy should be considered before filing: identify the available route, assess the evidence, secure the necessary resources, and plan beyond the award. The commercial advantage lies not simply in moving faster, but in being ready to make speed work.

***

Adv. Lina Makhuli is a partner in the firm’s Litigation Department and head of the international arbitration practice.

Our firm is a prominent Israeli law firm with extensive experience in complex commercial litigation and international arbitration. The firm combines strategic legal insight, a deep understanding of clients’ businesses, and a global perspective to navigate cross-border disputes. Our team develops tailored strategies to protect each client’s interests and advance their commercial objectives at every stage of the dispute.