KCAB’s 2026 International Arbitration Rules: What Practitioners and In House Counsel Need to Know

One of the most consequential changes is the establishment of the KCAB International Arbitration Court. This new body now oversees arbitrator appointments and challenges, as well as consolidation decisions, responsibilities that previously sat largely with the KCAB Secretariat. KCAB also now mandates award scrutiny, with the Secretary‑General able to suggest form modifications and draw attention to points of substance, and refer awards to the Court in appropriate cases. This reform aligns KCAB with governance structures familiar to counsel practicing under the ICC Rules, where the ICC Court exercises substantial supervisory authority, as SIAC’s Court of Arbitration model also does. For parties and counsel, it is hoped that this structural shift translates into greater predictability and institutional oversight. KCAB has openly signaled its wish to move away from previous perceptions that the Secretariat-led decision-making under the 2016 Rules lacked transparency.

In an effort to bolster procedural efficiency, the 2026 Rules now offer three distinct procedural tracks, each with its own tempo and structure appropriate to the value and/or complexity of the dispute:

• At the bottom of the scale is the Fast-Track Procedure, newly introduced for smaller-value disputes (under KRW 500 million (approximately USD 350,000) unless otherwise agreed). This is a strikingly high-speed mechanism: Tribunals must render the final award within three months of constitution, and proceedings are designed to be short, based only on written submissions, and without fact witness or expert evidence or document production.
• The next level up is the Expedited Procedure, which already existed under the 2016 Rules but has been expanded to cover disputes up to KRW 4 billion (approximately USD 2,730,000). While potentially longer than the Fast-Track (awards must be issued within six months of tribunal constitution), this procedure functions as a streamlined process with truncated written submissions and witness evidence, tighter case management and a generally accelerated timetable.
• Outside these two mechanisms lies the current standard procedure, which remains the default for more complex or high-value disputes. Even here, however, the 2026 Rules impose more rigorous case management: The Rules shorten the time for arbitrator appointments where the Court is required to form the tribunal / select a single arbitrator, and tribunals must issue a draft award within 60 days of the last hearing or filing, promoting greater predictability in award issuance. While this is a notably short period (compared to, for example, SIAC’s 90 days or HKIAC’s three-month window) and is likely to be welcomed by parties, it seems likely that tribunals will seek and be given more time by parties when required, especially considering that this procedure applies to the highest value and/or most complicated disputes going through KCAB.

The introduction of an express provision permitting early determination of claims represents another important development. The new Rules now explicitly empower tribunals to dispose of claims that are manifestly unsustainable or without legal merit. This procedure has long been a feature of the SIAC Rules, where early dismissal has been used to eliminate untenable claims at the outset, and HKIAC has already adopted similar powers. With the 2026 Rules, KCAB gives practitioners a better platform to seek early dismissal, whether to remove weak claims efficiently or pressure opposing parties into clarifying or narrowing their case at an early stage.

The new Rules also codify practices that have increasingly become standard in international arbitration since the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote hearings, electronic filings, electronic signatures and a generally less paper-based approach are now expressly authorized. While the 2016 Rules accommodated some aspects of virtual practice, they were not written with the expectation that remote advocacy and digital document handling would be the norm. The 2026 Rules now place KCAB on equal footing with the ICC and SIAC, both of which updated their rules in recent years to formalize virtual hearings and digital processes. For counsel, this means that the 2026 Rules reflect more closely the new reality of running complex cross-border disputes and multinational teams’ increasing use of technology.

Other changes reflecting recent developments in arbitration practice include an express provision encouraging the tribunal to discuss with the parties how AI should be used during the arbitration, and a requirement for parties to disclose third-party funding arrangements. KCAB has also refined its provisions on consolidation and joinder, offering greater clarity and flexibility for cases arising from complex project structures which can be particularly common in construction, energy, and infrastructure disputes, categories which have historically been significant in KCAB’s own caseload and other disputes involving Korean parties worldwide.

Taken together, the 2026 Rules bring KCAB into closer harmony with the procedural architecture seen in the leading arbitration institutions while having certain features, particularly the multi-tiered procedural tracks and condensed tribunal appointment timelines, that position KCAB as a distinctly efficient option. For practitioners, the overall effect is a set of rules that positions KCAB as even more international, more transparent, and noticeably faster in pace if parties adopt the expediting measures on offer.