Efficiency and fairness remain perennial objectives of international arbitration. The challenge is to reconcile them through a procedure that is proportionate to the dispute.
In an earlier post, I considered how early determination can dispose swiftly of claims or defences that do not warrant the time and cost of a full arbitral process. The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules take the debate further. They codify early determination, expand the existing Expedited Procedure and introduce the Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (HEAP), under which a final award must, in principle, be rendered within three months of the initial case management conference[1]. These mechanisms pursue efficiency in different ways: early determination addresses individual claims or defences, while expedited arbitration streamlines the dispute as a whole and HEAP compresses the process further. The wider range of options raises a central question: how much process does a dispute actually need?
A spectrum of procedural acceleration
Article 30 allows a party to seek early determination of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The mechanism is targeted and need not alter the course of the remaining arbitration[2].
The Expedited Procedure takes a broader approach. Under the 2026 Rules, the threshold for its automatic application increases from USD 3 million to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. The Court may appoint a sole arbitrator, with a final award due within six months of the initial case management conference[3].
HEAP goes further. It is opt-in, does not depend on the amount in dispute and requires a sole arbitrator to render the final award, in principle, within three months of the initial case management conference[4].
Each mechanism serves a different purpose. The wider choice requires parties and tribunals to decide early which procedure best fits the dispute.
Practical considerations
A three-month arbitration cannot simply be a conventional arbitration conducted faster. Parties and tribunals must decide from the outset what process the dispute actually needs.
Substantial commercial arbitrations often involve multiple rounds of submissions, document production, witness statements, expert reports, hearings and post-hearing submissions. Each may serve a legitimate purpose, but not every dispute requires them all. A documentary dispute centred on a narrow contractual issue may lend itself to significant compression. A case involving contested facts, extensive witness or expert evidence, or complex jurisdictional issues may not.
Availability and suitability are therefore different questions. Timing also matters. Parties may agree to HEAP before any dispute arises or consider it once the nature of the dispute is known. Â A pre-dispute choice offers certainty, while a later agreement allows the parties to assess the issues, evidence and likely complexity before deciding whether HEAP is suitable.
Procedural compression also involves trade-offs. Under HEAP, parties must front-load their principal pleadings and the tribunal may restrict or dispense with document production, witness evidence and hearings. Parties may also agree that the award need not contain reasons[5]. These measures may save time, but their suitability will depend on the dispute and the applicable legal framework. A reasoned award, for example, may be important where the parties want to understand the basis for the outcome or where the award may face scrutiny at the enforcement stage.
A compressed timetable also requires discipline. Parties must formulate their cases early and precisely. Tribunals must make procedural decisions promptly and maintain control of the proceedings. Front-loading may reduce later steps, but it can also concentrate work and cost at the outset. Unexpected factual or legal complexity may put further pressure on the timetable.
In a highly expedited process, arbitrator selection assumes particular importance. Availability alone is not enough. The arbitrator must be able to absorb the material quickly, identify the issues for determination and manage the proceedings firmly and fairly. This may require refusing requests that add little value while preserving the process needed for a fair determination. Â
Party autonomy remains central. Where parties have expressly chosen a highly expedited procedure, tribunals should give appropriate weight to that choice when considering subsequent requests. But expedition cannot displace procedural fairness. The tribunal must respond to the dispute that actually emerges and ensure that each party has a reasonable opportunity to present its case.
From efficiency to proportionality
HEAP forms part of a wider set of changes under the 2026 Rules. The removal of the previous mandatory Terms of Reference requirement, together with the greater prominence given to the initial case management conference and procedural timetable, points to greater flexibility in designing the proceedings[6].
Early determination, expedited arbitration and HEAP respond to different needs. Their success should not be measured simply by how often they are used or how quickly awards are rendered. Some disputes will require substantial process; others may not need the full procedural architecture often associated with international arbitration.
The real measure of efficiency is whether the procedure fits the dispute: enough process to determine it fairly, without unnecessary cost or delay.
[1] ICC Arbitration Rules 2026, arts 23-24; compare ICC Arbitration Rules 2021, art 23.
[2] ICC Arbitration Rules 2026, Appendix VI, arts 2(1)-(2), 6(2)-(3) and 7(2).
[3] ICC Arbitration Rules 2026, art 33; Appendix VI, arts 4(1) and 7(1).
[4] ICC Arbitration Rules 2026, Appendix V, arts 1(3)(c), 2(1) and 4.
[5] ICC Arbitration Rules 2026, art 30.
[6] ICC Arbitration Rules 2026, arts 30, 32 and 33; Appendix VI, art 7(1).