The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rule updates: What the updates mean for Japanese parties

On 1 June 2026 the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) brought into force a revised set of its Arbitration Rules. These updates come just five years after the ICC’s last overhaul of the Rules in 2021, reflecting the rapid developments taking place in international arbitration.

The new Rules apply to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2026 (unless the parties decide otherwise) and are built around three stated priorities: efficiency, clarity and usability.^[1] Arriving at a time when many leading Asian institutions have recently refreshed their own rulebooks, these updates reinforce the ICC’s credentials as a strong option for Japanese parties. The ICC Rules benefit from widespread recognition and acceptance amongst parties internationally. The 2026 reforms also introduce practical benefits, including a potentially more streamlined procedure following the removal of the Terms of Reference, an express power of early determination, the new Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure for parties seeking a rapid resolution, and a revised fee scale that lowers administrative costs for small to mid-sized disputes. Together, the 2026 updates ensure the ICC Rules remain a competitive choice alongside leading Asian institutional alternatives such as SIAC, HKIAC, KCAB, and JCAA.

Key changes in the 2026 ICC Rules

One of the most significant updates is the abolition of mandatory Terms of Reference (“ToR”). The ToR previously served as a procedural roadmap (determining procedural issues and defining the scope of the dispute) but often caused delays and disputes over its scope. The initial case management conference (CMC), which must be held within 30 days of the file reaching the tribunal, now fixes the point after which no new claims may be introduced without the tribunal’s permission.^[2] While the ToR was a hallmark of the ICC Rules, it was not widely seen in the rules of other institutions. This change, building on the experience of the Expedited Procedure Provisions introduced in 2017 under which ToR are not mandatory, brings the ICC more in line with the approaches taken by other leading institutions in the region.

New Article 30 of the ICC Rules introduces an early determination mechanism. This gives the tribunal an express power to dismiss, at an early stage, claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside its jurisdiction.^[3] While tribunals may previously have had those powers if the law of the seat provided them, this seems to invite tribunals to exercise such powers more readily. As such, with this update the ICC gives parties a better platform to seek early dismissal, whether to remove weak claims efficiently or encourage parties to narrow issues or clarify their positions at an earlier stage. Early determination mechanisms already existed under the SIAC, HKIAC and KCAB rules,^[4] so this change to the ICC Rules is a welcome addition.

A new, opt-in Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (the unfortunately named “HEAP”) introduces a new procedure which targets a final award within three months of the initial CMC. It allows tribunals to limit written submissions and fact and expert evidence, dispense with document production, dispense with hearings and, where agreed by the parties, issue unreasoned awards.^[5] Other institutions have implemented an ‘ultra-quick’ track, but most apply by default to lower value disputes: for example SIAC’s Streamlined Procedure (claims up to S$1 million/USD 780,000^[6]), KCAB’s new Fast-Track Procedure (up to KRW 500 million/USD 330,000) and JCAA’s expedited procedure (up to JPY 50 million/USD 312,000) each target an award within three months.^[7] However, unlike those value-capped tracks, the ICC’s HEAP is purely opt-in and available for a dispute of any size (although will likely be most suitable for less complex disputes). The existing ICC expedited procedure, which requires the final award to be rendered within six months of the initial CMC, is also expanded under the ICC Rules. The threshold rises from US$3 million to US$4 million, and the expedited procedure will apply by default to arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026 where the disputed amount falls under that threshold.

Under the emergency arbitrator provisions, an emergency arbitrator may now issue a preliminary order on an ex parte basis. This aligns the ICC with SIAC, whose 2025 Rules already allow parties to obtain urgent, ex parte interim relief from an Emergency Arbitrator through what SIAC calls its protective preliminary order process,^[8] while moving the ICC ahead of the JCAA, HKIAC and KCAB, all of which allow preliminary or interim orders but with all parties present – stopping short of express ex parte relief.

Confidentiality is addressed expressly for the first time in the ICC Rules. The 2026 Rules now require arbitrators to keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration, subject to limited exceptions.^[9] In the latest updates to the rules, the ICC declined to impose a standard confidentiality obligation on the parties themselves, reasoning that blanket confidentiality can be unsuitable for disputes involving States or matters of public interest, so the confidentiality of the proceedings remains a matter for party agreement.^[10] This is a meaningful point of difference for Japanese companies, because the leading regional rules in Asia take the opposite approach: proceedings are confidential by default under the SIAC Rules 2025,^[11] the HKIAC 2024 Rules,^[12] and the JCAA Commercial Arbitration Rules 2021,^[13] all of which impose broad duties of confidentiality extending to the parties, their counsel and the institution. A Japanese party that values confidentiality in an ICC arbitration should therefore provide for it expressly in the arbitration clause.

Other refinements are made throughout the Rules. The costs schedule is revised, reducing ICC administrative expenses for disputes under US$10 million. Arbitrator disclosure obligations are tightened (doubts are to be resolved in favour of disclosure, and parties must help identify potential conflicts),^[14] and the six-month deadline for the final award under the standard procedure (which was rarely followed in practice as procedural timetables established in most cases extended beyond that time frame) is replaced by a timetable-driven approach where the ICC President fixes, and may extend, the time limit based on the procedural timetable of the case, or upon a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal..

The ICC Rules continue to be a good option for Japanese parties

Several features make the ICC a sensible choice of rules and administering institution for Japanese parties, particularly in contracts with international counterparties. First, the ICC Rules are widely recognised and the ICC as an institution is widely seen as neutral. In a 2025 global survey the ICC Rules were ranked the most preferred arbitration rules worldwide, across every major region. ^[15] This makes the ICC Rules a potential compromise when a Japanese company and a foreign counterparty cannot agree on a home-jurisdiction institution. The ICC opened branches of the ICC International Court of Arbitration’s Secretariat in Hong Kong nearly 20 years ago and Singapore nearly 10 years ago, demonstrating the ICC’s commitment to the region and facilitating more convenient communication (on similar time-zones) between Japanese parties (and their counsel) and the ICC Secretariat during the administrative phases of a case.

Second, the ICC Court’s scrutiny of every draft award, a step the HKIAC does not replicate, in theory adds a layer of quality control that may help mitigate the risk of an award being challenged at the enforcement stage.

Third, the 2026 updates to the rules address some of the issues that previously could cause some concern for Japanese arbitration users. The cost and delay sometimes associated with ICC arbitration are partially targeted by the removal of the Terms of Reference, the early-determination power, the higher expedited proceedings threshold and the new three-month HEAP process. The revised fee scale also lowers administrative costs for small to mid-sized disputes.

For a Japanese company contracting in the international arena seeking a neutral and now markedly more efficient set of rules and institution, the revised 2026 ICC Rules make a strong case while still facing plenty of regional competition.

^[1] ICC Executive Board approves revised Rules of Arbitration – ICC – International Chamber of Commerce

^[2] 2026 ICC Rules, Articles 24-25.

^[3] 2026 ICC Rules, Article 30(1).

^[4] 2025 SIAC Rules, Article 47; 2024 HKAIC Rules, Article 43; 2026 KCAB Rules, Article 36.

^[5] 2026 ICC Rules, Appendix VI, Articles 6(2)-6(3), Article 7(2).

^[6] USD exchange rates from the time of writing applied.

^[7] 2025 SIAC Rules, Article 13 and Schedule 2; 2026 KCAB Rules, Chapter 7; JCAA Rules, Part 2 and Article 88(2).

^[8] 2025 SIAC Rules, Schedule 1, paragraphs 25 – 34.

^[9] 2026 ICC Rules, Article 12(8).

^[10] Unveiling the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, part 6: Written communications, time limits for awards and confidentiality – ICC – International Chamber of Commerce

^[11] 2025 SIAC Rules, Article 59.

^[12] 2024 HKAIC Rules, Article 45.

^[13] 2021 JCAA Rules, Article 42.

^[14] 2026 ICC Rules, Article 12(8).

^[15] ICC arbitration tops global survey – ICC – International Chamber of Commerce

This information is provided by Vinson & Elkins LLP for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended, nor should it be construed, as legal advice.