Overview
The 2026 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration entered into force on June 1, 2026. The revisions modernize ICC arbitration while preserving its core architecture, with updates addressing arbitrator disclosure, expedited proceedings, emergency arbitration, electronic communications, early determination, and case management.
The headline development is the new Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP), an opt-in procedure under which the tribunal must render its final award within three months of the initial case management conference, unless that time limit is extended.
For businesses, the appeal is clear. HEAP offers a route to an ICC award within three months, an exceptionally compressed timetable for international arbitration. Used in the right case, it can provide a prompt determination of discrete commercial disputes while preserving the key advantages of arbitration, including the potential for cross-border enforcement under the New York Convention.
That speed comes with procedural trade-offs. Parties choosing HEAP should expect a sole arbitrator, front-loaded submissions, limited scope for extensions, close control over evidence, and the possibility of a documents-only determination. HEAP is likely to be valuable where the issue in dispute is narrow and the record is ready, but it will be less suitable for disputes requiring broader procedural space.
In Depth
Highly expedited arbitration
HEAP applies only when all parties agree. This is a key distinction from the ICC Expedited Procedure Provisions, which may apply automatically by reference to the amount in dispute and the date of the arbitration agreement. HEAP has no monetary threshold. Its suitability depends not on claim value, but on the complexity of the issues and the parties’ interest in rapid final resolution. Parties can therefore agree to HEAP for a high-value dispute over sufficiently narrow and discrete issues. Conversely, HEAP may be inappropriate for a low-value dispute if the case is factually complex, document-heavy, or dependent on witness and expert evidence.
The ICC identifies lower-complexity commercial disputes, claims with a simple factual matrix, and discrete issues requiring swift resolution, such as technology disputes, sports-related disputes, or purchase price adjustments, as likely candidates.
This distinction may be particularly important in construction and infrastructure disputes. A project dispute may be high-value but still turn on a narrow, document-based issue such as whether a certified sum is payable, retention should be released, a milestone payment has been triggered, liquidated damages are due under a defined contractual mechanism, or a discrete variation or price-adjustment issue can be decided on an existing record. Those issues may be suitable for HEAP if they are severable from the wider project dispute and the evidence is readily available. By contrast, claims involving delay, disruption, defects, prolongation costs, or complex final accounts will often be poor candidates because they typically require document production, factual witnesses, expert evidence and, in some cases, related parties or related contracts.
Front-loaded case preparation
The most significant practical feature of HEAP is front-loading. The claimant’s request must include the statement of claim, setting out the legal grounds, facts, relief sought, relevant agreements, arbitration agreement, proposals on the sole arbitrator, and observations on the place, applicable law, and language of the arbitration. To the extent possible, the claimant must also submit the evidence and legal authorities on which it relies.
The respondent then faces a compressed timetable. Within 20 days of receiving the request and statement of claim, it must provide threshold information, including its observations on the sole arbitrator, place of arbitration, applicable law, and language. Within 30 days, it must submit its answer and statement of defence, together with any counterclaim and, to the extent possible, the evidence and legal authorities relied upon. Those time limits are not extended unless the parties agree.
HEAP may reduce overall duration and cost, but it increases the burden at the outset. A claimant should not commence HEAP unless it can file a developed case immediately. A respondent should assume that, once served, there will be little room for prolonged internal investigation, slow document collection, or extended settlement positioning before its detailed defense is due.
Sole arbitrator and compressed timetable
All HEAP cases are decided by a sole arbitrator. If the parties do not jointly nominate the sole arbitrator within 20 days of the respondent’s receipt of the request and statement of claim, or a longer period agreed by the parties, the ICC court will directly appoint a suitable arbitrator. Challenges to the sole arbitrator must be brought within seven days of notification of appointment or confirmation, or within seven days of learning the relevant facts.
Procedural flexibility and evidentiary limits
Under HEAP, the initial case management conference must take place within seven days of the tribunal receiving the file, unless extended by the secretary general. At that conference, the tribunal will consult the parties on procedural measures and establish the timetable.
That first procedural meeting will likely determine the shape of the entire arbitration. The tribunal has broad discretion to adopt measures necessary to meet the timetable. It may decide not to allow document production, limit the number, length, and scope of written submissions, and restrict written witness and expert evidence. After consulting the parties, it may also decide the dispute solely on the documents, without a hearing or examination of witnesses or experts.
This is both HEAP’s strength and its limitation. For discrete contractual, accounting, or payment disputes, these powers may eliminate unnecessary procedural steps and deliver a quick merits determination. For disputes involving credibility issues, extensive technical evidence, allegations of fraud, multiple factual witnesses, or significant document asymmetry, the same compression may create strategic and due-process concerns.
There is also an important safety valve. If the dispute proves unsuitable for HEAP as it develops, the parties may agree that HEAP should no longer apply. The ICC court may also decide, on its own motion or at the request of a party or the tribunal, that the case should continue under the Expedited Procedure Provisions or the ordinary ICC rules. That safeguard may be especially relevant in construction disputes, where an apparently narrow issue can expand into a wider dispute over delay, technical performance, or valuation.
No joinder or consolidation
HEAP is designed for contained disputes. Joinder and consolidation are unavailable.
That limitation is important, particularly in construction, infrastructure, energy, shareholder, joint venture, finance, and supply-chain arrangements, where related parties and related contracts often play a central role. In those contexts, parties may wish to reserve HEAP for defined bilateral claims rather than applying it across the contract as a whole.
A fast award with cross-border enforcement
A HEAP award remains an ICC arbitral award, which is significant in international disputes. International arbitral awards benefit from the New York Convention, which provides a widely adopted framework for the recognition and enforcement of awards across borders.
This can make a HEAP award more useful than a domestic court judgment, particularly where the counterparty, assets, or business operations are located in multiple jurisdictions. Enforcement is not automatic, and national courts may still refuse recognition on established grounds, including jurisdiction, due process, arbitrability, and public policy. Even so, the New York Convention gives award creditors a recognized and generally reliable route to enforcement.
The commercial advantage lies in the combination of speed and enforceability: a fast ICC award with a credible path to enforcement abroad. In construction, this may make HEAP an interesting complement to dispute boards or adjudication mechanisms. Unlike many project-level dispute board or adjudication decisions, a HEAP award is intended to be a final ICC arbitral award, with the potential for recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention. That may be valuable where the parties need not only a quick answer, but a final and enforceable determination. HEAP should not, however, be treated as a wholesale substitute for dispute boards or adjudication processes designed to keep a project moving during performance. It is better understood as an additional tool for defined disputes where finality and enforceability are more important than procedural breadth.
Key takeaways
HEAP gives businesses a new ICC arbitration option where speed is the priority and the dispute is ready for prompt determination.
It is likely to work best where the dispute is bilateral, document-based, and narrow; the relevant evidence is already available; the parties can accept a sole arbitrator; and a final award within three months has real commercial value.
Parties should use HEAP cautiously where they expect a dispute may require joinder, consolidation, extensive document production, expert evidence, multiple witnesses, or a three-member tribunal.
When drafting ICC clauses, parties should consider whether HEAP should apply to all disputes or only to defined categories. Parties should also specify the seat and language of the arbitration and decide whether to preserve the default position that the HEAP award will include reasons or, instead, agree that no reasons are to be given (recognizing that this latter option may create enforcement challenges in some jurisdictions).
As with any dispute resolution provision, the key is to draft deliberately; language meant to create strategic advantage should not inadvertently create procedural traps, enforcement obstacles, or uncertainty over the very arbitration rights it was designed to protect.