ICC expands emergency arbitration and introduces ‘ex parte’ preliminary orders

Rachel Turner and Johanne Brocas were commenting following new International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules coming into force on 1 June that introduce important changes to the emergency arbitrator provisions in Appendix IV, as well as a new ‘ex parte’ preliminary order.

The emergency arbitration procedure was initially introduced to counter criticism that arbitration does not offer emergency relief in the same way that courts traditionally provide. It was first introduced as an opt-in, then an opt-out offering under the ICC 2012 rules, to provide parties the option to quickly obtain emergency relief when required.

The 2026 update broadens the scope of emergency arbitration. Proceedings may now be initiated not only against signatories to the arbitration agreement and their successors, but also against other parties, including non-signatories, where the President of the ICC Court is satisfied that there is a prima facie basis for finding that they are bound by the arbitration agreement.

This change is expected to make emergency arbitration more accessible in increasingly common complex multi-party proceedings. The latest ICC statistics underscore that trend: 11 of the 30 emergency applications filed in 2025 involved multiple parties.

The ICC said this amendment reflects the “present-day realities of international trade” and gives the ICC president discretion “to decide that the EA provisions may also apply to persons and entities other than signatories to arbitration agreements or their successors.”

Another significant change in the new rules is the express recognition, for the first time, of preliminary orders, including on an ex parte basis, to strengthen urgent interim relief. Under this provision, a party may seek a preliminary order preventing another party from frustrating the purpose of the application at any stage of the emergency arbitrator proceedings.

The EA provisions now also expressly confirm that they do not apply to investment arbitration generally, not just BIT disputes.

Commenting on the updates, Turner, an arbitration expert at Pinsent Masons in Shanghai, said: “The 2026 ICC rules mark a significant development in emergency arbitration by expressly recognising the availability of preliminary relief on an ex parte basis, enabling parties to secure urgent protective measures without prior notice where circumstances demand,” she said. “At the same time, this enhanced power is carefully framed to preserve due process, reflecting a calibrated balance between immediacy of relief and the respondent’s right to be heard."

The latest data held by the ICC indicates that emergency arbitration is an increasingly popular option being exercised by parties. Out of 881 new cases filed in 2025, 30 began with emergency arbitrator applications. This brings the total number of EA applications to 287 since the procedure was introduced in 2012.

Turner said: “The update will likely lead to an increase in the emergency arbitration procedure being used to address bond calls since the preliminary relief mechanism could be applied for and obtained before the five-day payment obligation under the ICC Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (URDG 758) bites”.

Brocas, an arbitration specialist at Pinsent Masons in Singapore, said the update also brings the ICC rules more closely into line with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s (SIAC) 2025 Rules, which came into force on 1 January 2025. “Under SIAC 2025, parties may seek protective preliminary orders without notice. These orders are designed to prevent urgent relief from being frustrated, for example through the dissipation of assets.”

Brocas commented that both the ICC 2026 and SIAC 2025 rules seek to balance urgency with due process safeguards in ex parte relief. She noted that SIAC adopts a more structured approach, requiring notification to the other parties within 12 hours of the emergency arbitrator’s decision, whereas the ICC uses more flexible wording such as “as soon as possible” or “immediately”, allowing greater procedural discretion but less prescriptive certainty.