International Arbitration

International Arbitration Information by Aceris Law LLC

  • International Arbitration Resources
  • Search Engine
  • Model Request for Arbitration
  • Model Answer to Request for Arbitration
  • Find International Arbitrators
  • Blog
  • Arbitration Laws
  • Arbitration Lawyers
You are here: Home / ICC Arbitration / ICC Expedited Arbitration – Addressing Delays, Costs and Efficiency

ICC Expedited Arbitration – Addressing Delays, Costs and Efficiency

20/11/2016 by International Arbitration

ICC Expedited ArbitrationOn 4 November 2016, the ICC announced its amendments to the ICC Rules of Arbitration, applicable from March 2017, which includes Annex VI on the new ICC Expedited Arbitration Procedure. According to the Secretariat, the introduction of this procedure aims to address business concerns about the time and costs associated with an ICC Arbitration, by providing a shorter, more efficient procedure.

This initiative is not novel, but the ICC is the latest to introduce this practice, following similar procedures in other arbitral settings such as the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, and others.

The main feature of ICC Expedited Arbitration is that it automatically applies to disputes of less than USD 2 million. For disputes exceeding that amount, parties can also opt-in to the Expedited Procedure.

The most controversial aspect of the new rules is the discretion of the Court to appoint a sole arbitrator to the dispute despite parties’ agreement for a different composition. The ICC clarifies that this discretion will be exercised regularly.

Other features include the scrapping of the traditional terms of reference, which today plays a largely ceremonial role, the possibility to not conduct a hearing, to not request the production of documents or take witness testimonies, the rendering of an award within six months of the case management conference and lower fees (Appendix III, Costs for Expedited Procedure).

ICC Expedited ArbitrationThe ICC Court will continue to scrutinize these outgoing awards, ensuring ICC’s quality throughout its work.

The above should be read in concordance with the possibility of reverting to the regular Arbitration Procedure, following a reasoned request by the Parties or on the Court’s own motion, with the possibility of reconstituting the sitting arbitral tribunal should it be deemed appropriate. Additionally, the Expedited Procedure can be opted-out, and the new rules apply to agreements concluded only after the Procedure comes into force (art. 30 ICC Revised Rules).

The rules of Expedited Arbitration raise legitimate concerns regarding the ICC’s authorization to circumvent direct party agreement, in cases where it will use its discretion to appoint a sole arbitrator to a dispute, despite an arbitration agreement with contrary provisions. The size of the dispute, should not equate to any lesser quality treatment by the ICC – which is exactly what the new rules might be stipulating for disputes of less than USD 2 million.

It remains to be seen whether the business community’s concerns for the need for such a development have been addressed. In any case, the implementation of these provisions in practice will demonstrate whether they can operate as the ICC envisaged, and ICC expedited arbitration should in time increase the volume of smaller disputes where ICC arbitration is used.

The Rules that will enter into force in March 2017 are available below.


Download the PDF file .

  • Anastasia Choromidou, Aceris Law SARL

Filed Under: Arbitration Information, Arbitration Procedure, Arbitration Rules, ICC Arbitration

Search Arbitration Information

Cyrus Capital Partners v. Mexico: Investment Managers, Control and USMCA Legacy Investments

Hong Kong Sets Aside USD 481.6 Million Award: The Duty to Address the Defence Actually Advanced

Banesco v. Panama: ICSID Jurisdiction, Foreign-Controlled Companies and Regulatory Ambiguity

Perjury and False Evidence in International Arbitration

Andraous v. Netherlands: Share Ownership, Employment Rights and the Definition of an Investment

NBA Arbitration: A Player’s Guide to Protecting Your Contract, Compensation, and Career

Legacy Vulcan, LLC v. United Mexican States: Regulatory Arbitrariness and the Limits of Investment Treaty Compensation

DIFC Court of Appeal Sets Aside DIAC Award for Procedural Unfairness in Oheo Bank v Parker [2025] DIFC CA 006

Can Arbitrators Ask Artificial Intelligence for Its View on Legal Issues?

Security for Costs in Investment Arbitration

Behind the Curtain: A Step-by-Step Guide to LCIA Arbitration

Behind the Curtain: A Step-by-Step Guide to SIAC Arbitration under the 2025 Rules

Who Bears Responsibility for AI in Arbitration? The EU AI Act and the Role of Arbitral Institutions

Foreign-Seated Corporate Arbitration Clauses in Italian Companies

© 2012-2026 · IA