New Trends in Institutional Arbitration
Introduction
When we discuss reform in international arbitration, we often focus on individual rule changes: a new deadline, a broader expedited procedure, or an additional disclosure obligation. But the developments of 2026 suggest something more significant. They indicate a shift in the philosophy of institutional arbitration itself.
My central proposition is simple: international arbitration is moving from formal procedural architecture toward active case management. The earlier phase of reform concentrated largely on legitimacy, transparency and the management of complex proceedings. The emerging phase is increasingly concerned with speed, proportionality, procedural discipline and differentiated procedures suited to the dispute at hand.
The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules are the clearest expression of this shift. The ongoing LCIA revision suggests that the same pressures are being felt across institutions, even if the responses may differ. And the growing use of artificial intelligence adds a further challenge: how can institutions use technology to improve efficiency without compromising confidentiality, due process and the arbitrator’s personal responsibility to decide?
From Legitimacy to Efficiency
To understand the importance of the 2026 ICC revision, it is useful to compare it with the 2021 Rules.
The 2021 revision was largely concerned with complexity, transparency and legitimacy. It addressed issues such as joinder and consolidation, tribunal constitution, third-party funding disclosure, and conflicts arising from changes in counsel. Those reforms responded to concerns about fairness and confidence in the arbitral process.
The 2026 revision has a different center of gravity. Its key themes are speed, proportionality and procedural simplification. That difference is visible across the amendments: Terms of Reference are no longer mandatory; early determination is expressly incorporated into the Rules; expedited arbitration has been expanded; a Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure has been created; and award timetables are tailored to the case rather than tied to an artificial default formula.
In short, the 2021 Rules were substantially about making arbitration safer and more transparent. The 2026 Rules are much more about making it leaner and faster.
This does not mean that the 2021 Rules failed. On the contrary, the five-year interval reveals a more responsive approach to rulemaking. ICC appears to regard its Rules not as a code to be rewritten once a decade, but as a framework that should be adjusted when practice, evidence and user expectations justify change.
What the ICC Changes Mean in Practice
The most emblematic change is the removal of mandatory Terms of Reference. For generations, that document was one of the defining features of ICC arbitration. It confirmed the scope of the dispute, recorded procedural arrangements and helped crystallize the parties’ consent.
But practice produced evidence. Since the Expedited Procedure was introduced in 2017, ICC has administered more than 1,000 expedited cases, in which Terms of Reference were not mandatory. Tribunals voluntarily prepared them in fewer than 25 cases. The lesson is striking: a procedure can remain valuable, but tradition alone is not a sufficient reason to preserve it.
The initial Case Management Conference now becomes the central early procedural event. After that conference, new claims require the tribunal’s authorization. The movement is therefore not from order to informality. It is from a formal document to active procedural control.
The same philosophy appears in early determination. Tribunals may now dispose at an early stage of claims or defenses that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside their jurisdiction. The mechanism existed in ICC practice but placing it directly in the Rules makes the power clearer and more accessible.
Speed is also addressed through differentiated procedures. The Expedited Procedure threshold rises to four million US dollars for qualifying agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. More dramatically, the new opt-in Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure contemplates an award within three months of the initial Case Management Conference. The sole arbitrator may restrict submissions, dispense with document production or a hearing, and, if the parties agree, issue an award without reason.
Finally, the old six-month period for rendering a final award has been replaced by a case-specific timetable. That is an honest recognition of how cases were already managed. Rather than preserving a nominal deadline that was rarely applied, the Rules now align formal procedure with operational reality.
The Emerging LCIA Direction
The LCIA is the other institution to watch closely. Its formal revision process began in March 2026. There is not yet a draft text, but the consultation and the mandates of thirteen revision committees reveal the likely direction.
Speed and procedural efficiency appear to be central. The LCIA is considering fast-track or expedited procedures, streamlined proceedings and refinements to early determination. It is also examining stronger case-management tools, emergency relief, evidence, hearings and institutional monitoring when timetables begin to slip.
At the same time, the LCIA review may be broader in scope than the ICC revision. It encompasses complex and related arbitrations, including joinder, consolidation and concurrent proceedings, while also addressing cost control, disclosure of third-party funding and a possible optional ad valorem fee schedule which is a notable departure for an institution traditionally associated with time-based remuneration.
The consultation extends further still: anonymized awards, mediation and settlement windows, sector-specific procedures, sustainability, governance and special considerations for disputes involving States or State-owned entities.
So, the ICC and LCIA may not produce identical rulebooks. ICC is simplifying a mature procedural framework. LCIA appears to be reconsidering a wider range of institutional functions. Yet their underlying philosophy is converging: reduce procedural friction, strengthen case management, and give tribunals tools to deliver efficient and enforceable outcomes.
As for the other principal institutions, there has not, as of 30 September 2026, been an equivalent general 2026 overhaul that I would put in the same category. SIAC’s major revision was the 2025 SIAC Rules, effective 1 January 2025; HKIAC’s current general rules are the 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules; SCC’s are the 2023 Arbitration Rules. The ICDR’s core International Arbitration Rules remain essentially the 2021 Rules; AAA has introduced or revised some specialized procedures, including AI-led arbitration rules in 2026, but that is different from a wholesale revision of the ICDR International Arbitration Rules.
So, for an international arbitration practitioner, I would say the 2026 ICC revision is the major development, with the forthcoming LCIA revision likely to be the next important one.
AI: Efficiency Without Delegation
Artificial intelligence brings this reform agenda into sharper focus.
ICC has deliberately kept AI-specific provisions outside the 2026 Rules and is developing guidance through its Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in Dispute Resolution. The Rules remain technology-neutral, giving tribunals broad authority to adopt appropriate procedural measures. LCIA, by contrast, has expressly included AI, cybersecurity, data protection, confidentiality and electronic communications within its revision process.
These approaches may eventually produce two regulatory models: technology-neutral rules supplemented by adaptable guidance, or a small number of core AI principles placed directly in institutional rules.
Whichever model prevails, the real issues are not technological labels. They are enduring procedural principles: confidentiality and data security; due process; accuracy and verifiability; equality of arms; and, above all, the non-delegability of the arbitrator’s adjudicative function.
There is an obvious difference between using AI to improve the language of a paragraph and asking it to analyze the parties’ submissions, select the strongest reasons for rejecting a claim, or draft a decisive section of an award. As the tool begins to participate in the intellectual process leading to the decision, assistance approaches delegation.
The arbitral community will therefore need a principles-based boundary. Technology may support the tribunal, but it cannot replace the tribunal’s judgment. Sources must be verified, confidential material must be protected, and any use that materially affects the decisional process must be governed with particular care.
Arbitration institutions are simultaneously trying to encourage technology as an efficiency tool and prevent technology from compromising the legitimacy of adjudication. Those two objectives can pull in opposite directions.
In the coming years, one of the key procedural challenges in international arbitration will be finding the right balance between using AI to improve efficiency and preserving the arbitrator’s personal responsibility for deciding the case.
Conclusion
Let me conclude with three observations.
First, the 2026 ICC revision is not simply a collection of technical amendments. It reflects a reassessment of whether procedural structures accumulated over decades remain necessary. The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference is the clearest symbol of that reassessment.
Second, the direction of travel is shared. ICC and LCIA are both responding to criticism that arbitration can become too slow, too costly and too similar to litigation. Their answer is proportionality, differentiated procedures, early decision-making and more active control of the case.
Third, efficiency cannot be pursued in isolation. The use of AI demonstrates why. Arbitration institutions must encourage tools that reduce cost and delay while preserving confidentiality, due process and the personal responsibility of the arbitrator.
We may therefore be entering a second phase of institutional reform. The first modernised arbitration through legitimacy and transparency. The second is testing which procedures genuinely add value, which can be simplified, and which should be replaced by active adjudicative management.
The common thread is clear: less ritual, more responsibility; less formalism, more purposeful case management; and procedures designed around the needs of the dispute rather than the weight of tradition.
- A summary of this article is presented on 30 September 2026 at Year in Review, Year Ahead: International Arbitration in 2026 panel of the Istanbul Arbitration Days 2026.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
Arbitrators increasingly use AI tools for legal research, drafting assistance, summarizing records and citation-checking. The pressing question is no longer whether this is permissible, but how far it may go before it compromises the arbitrator’s personal mandate…
In its decision dated 29 April 2025 and numbered E. 2024/1700, K. 2025/1758 (the Decision), the 6th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation (the Court of Cassation) made significant findings concerning the setting aside of an arbitral award rendered…
Arbitration is a system that enables parties, within the framework of freedom of contract, to partially depart from state court proceedings and resolve their disputes through a private adjudicatory mechanism. Under Turkish law, the legal remedy available against arbitral…
On 29 January 2026, the International Chamber of Commerce’s (“ICC”) has published a report on expedited procedure provisions (“Report”). The Report is prepared by a Task Force established within the ICC’s Commission on Arbitration and ADR. The Report compiles…
Emergency arbitration addresses the need for interim protection before the arbitral tribunal is constituted in institutional arbitrations. Arbitral institutions establish short timeframes to ensure parties can obtain interim relief quickly. For example, the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) requires that the emergency...
International arbitration remains the preferred mechanism for resolving complex cross-border disputes. Yet despite its advantages—neutrality, enforceability, flexibility—arbitration is frequently criticized for being too slow, too expensive, and too procedurally heavy. Often, parties proceed through hearings and...
For arbitral awards rendered in international commercial arbitration to produce legal effects in foreign jurisdictions, they must be subjected to proceedings for “recognition” and “enforcement.” This process is governed by the New York Convention as well as by the provisions of the Law on Private International Law...
Arbitrability, the determination of whether a specific subject matter can be resolved through arbitration, constitutes a fundamental aspect of arbitration within the scope of international commercial dispute resolution. This concept draws a delicate balance between party autonomy—a fundamental principle of arbitration...
The recognition, enforcement, and annulment of foreign court and arbitral awards in Türkiye are processes in which public policy emerges as one of the most critical criteria for review, both in theory and in practice. The Court of Cassation decisions determine the direction of case law regarding the scope and...
As is well known, the action for annulment of objection is a special type of lawsuit regulated under Article 67 of the Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“EBL”). The primary objective of this action is to nullify a debtor’s objection to execution proceedings. Despite its procedural function of facilitating...
On 16 December 2024, the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) released its third batch of challenge decisions covering the period from 22 July 2017 to 31 December 2022. The LCIA has also issued a detailed commentary that identifies key legal themes and analytical trends, offering practitioners...
The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has published its report on the dispute resolution statistics for 2023 (“Report”) , shedding light on the evolving landscape of international arbitration...
Syndicated loans undoubtedly hold a significant position among global financing models. In 2023 alone, 3,655 syndicated loans were provided to companies in the US, with their total value reaching USD 2.4 trillion...
Preliminary attachment refers to the temporary seizure of a debtor's assets to secure a creditor's claim. While it serves as a vital instrument for safeguarding the rights of creditors, it is subject to specific and stringent conditions under Turkish law to prevent any potential misuse...
One of the most important reasons for parties to choose arbitration is the opportunity to freely choose their arbitrators. This freedom granted to the parties also distinguishes arbitration from proceedings before state courts, where the parties are deprived of the power to determine the judges who will conduct the...
The 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled on October 12, 2022, that national courts have jurisdiction over objections to provisional measures in international arbitration disputes...
The declaration of intent to resolve disputes through arbitration is the fundamental constituent element of an arbitration agreement. To speak of a valid arbitration agreement, the parties' intention to arbitrate must emerge in a way that leaves no room for dispute...
In the wake of the evolving dynamics of commercial transactions, the Netherlands Arbitration Institute Foundation (NAI) announced new arbitration rules . 2024 NAI Arbitration Rules are in force as of 1 March 2024 and will be applicable on proceedings filed on or after this date...
With the global shift to online activities, domain names play a crucial role in identifying businesses. It is more common than ever for a domain name to be registered that is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark...
The ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR (“Commission”) published a new guide and report with the aim to increase awareness on alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) mechanisms to prevent disputes and strengthen the relationship between all stakeholders.The Guide on Effective Conflict Management...
Mergers and Acquisitions (“M&A”) are restructuring of companies or assets through various types of financial transactions, such as mergers, acquisitions, purchase of assets, or management acquisitions. This Newsletter article covers M&A disputes being solved before arbitral tribunals.
In the context of arbitration practice, the principle of revision au fond means that the courts can not examine the merits of a dispute when reviewing an arbitral award. This principle is most commonly encountered in set aside and enforcement proceedings. An arbitral award is evidence of the parties’ willingness...
Under Turkish law, parties may agree on the settlement of disputes that have arisen or may arise, regarding the rights that they can freely dispose of, by arbitration. However, disputes which are not subject to the will of parties, such as the disputes relating to in rem rights of immovables, bankruptcy law...
On 4 September 2020, a research project “Does a Right to a Physical Hearing Exist in International Arbitration?” was launched by an International Council for Commercial Arbitration (“ICCA”) taskforce. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many arbitration hearings were held online. Many institutional rules...
Dubai International Arbitration Center amended its Arbitration Rules on 25 February 2022. The 2022 Arbitration Rules were published on 2 March 2022 and came into effect on 21 March 2022. The Rules will be applied to arbitrations that are filed after 21 March 2022; unless parties agree otherwise...
In the aftermath of the Achmea decision, controversies on intra-EU arbitrations continue. Most recently, the Paris Court of Appeal has annulled two arbitral awards rendered against Poland. Meanwhile, the Higher Regional Court of Berlin has refused to declare that an Irish investor’s ICSID claim...
Under Turkish law, the legal remedy that can be applied against arbitral awards is an annulment action. Law on International Arbitration No. 4686 (“IAL”) finds its application area in arbitration proceedings where Turkey is the place of arbitration...
It is well known that following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, problems arose related to arbitration of intra-EU disputes, and particularly arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty...
Arbitration in corporate law contains controversial elements in many respects, especially the issue of arbitrability. Even in legal systems where these disputes are considered to be arbitrable, uncertainties remain on whether an arbitration clause can be included in the articles of...
Arbitration has benifited from a great increase in the use of technology which has directly effected the conduct of proceedings. More particularly, with digitalization, the way that we conduct arbitration proceedings has been changed to reflect the current needs of parties, with an aim of increasing time...