International Commercial Arbitration Q2 2026

This update explores trends and developments in international commercial arbitration from a Norwegian perspective – together with our views.

We first look at the newly published «PO1» in the Heroic Idun case and provide our thoughts on selected elements from it. Second, we celebrate the «Nordics United» initiative during the upcoming IBA in Copenhagen in October 2026. Third, we highlight news from Q2 2026 – with special focus on the newly adopted ICC Arbitration Rules. We round off with an overview of events to add to your calendar after the summer holidays.

Overview

We have previously advocated for more publication of both awards and procedural orders (see our Q4 2024 Newsletter). Moreover, the newly established Norwegian Arbitration Association (NAA) has taken on the task of making this a reality (ref. e.g. conversation with Knut Høvik and Borgar Høgetveit Berg in Woldgiftspodden episode 2). According to recent reports from NAA’s general meeting on 1 June 2026, this work is unfortunately progressing slowly. In the meantime, the maritime sector is leading the way through Nordiske Domme. NOMA has also recently published the PO1 from the Heroic Idun case, see here.

«PO1» has been on the agenda for many seminars – too many, some may say – and templates and anecdotes have been shared about what is considered «best practice». However, it is something entirely different to see «a real one» from a high-stakes matter involving experienced arbitrators and counsels. These provide the arbitration community with important insight into «good practice» that can be used both as inspiration and as basis for discussion and development. However, as NOMA highlighted when publishing the PO1: a PO1 is tailored to the dispute at hand, taking into account, for example, its size and complexity as well as the parties to the dispute. Thus, real-life examples must always be read with this in mind.

Against this backdrop, we will provide some comments and views on the Heroic Idun-PO1 («HI-PO1«). First, we will look at how the principle of front-loading is handled. Second, we will consider how the limitation of liability for the arbitral tribunal is dealt with. Third, we will highlight the inclusion of a provision allowing for the appointment of an administrative secretary. We will conclude by highlighting what we would have liked to see, but which there may have been good reasons for not including).

Front-loading

A front-loaded process is important to get all the «cards» on the table as early as possible, both regarding facts and submissions. Such a process increases the chances of an early settlement, as it can foster greater trust between the parties. Even if no settlement is reached, it paves the way for an efficient and less costly procedure leading up to the final award. Moreover, a front-loaded process is also a prerequisite for potential preliminary views from the arbitral tribunal (see more on this in our Q1 2026 Newsletter under the heading «Proposal no. 6: Preliminary (non-binding) views (the «German approach»).

In our view, it is important that the wording of the PO1 reflects that the arbitration process is based on the principle of front-loading. In the HI-PO1, this is clearly stated at the start of both paragraphs (24) and (45).

However, merely stating the principle is not sufficient to achieve a front-loaded process. It must be supported by strict rules that give the arbitral tribunal a sufficient basis for strict execution (see further on the importance of this in our Q1 2026 Newsletter under the heading «Proposal no. 1: Front-loading – rules and stricter execution«). In our view, the HI-PO1 serves as a very good example, and we highlight some of the key elements below:

It is obvious, but the relief sought and the submissions supporting it drive the process in relation to both «the facts and the law». It is therefore essential that the parties’ submissions are set out as early as possible. On this point, paragraph (24) of the HI-PO1 (24) provides as follows:

«To ensure a frontloaded process, the Parties shall, to the extent possible, submit a full Statement of Claim or Defence in their first submission (C-1/R-1). The Parties cannot, without the prior approval of the Tribunal, submit further submissions on the merits of the dispute (as opposed to procedural issues that may arise in the course of the arbitration) than set out in the Timetable.»

In practice, this means that a party will not dare to withhold submissions that it could have made in the Statement of Claim or Defence, as this may lead to preclusion. This is therefore an effective way to regulate it.

Second, the HI-PO1 also sets out a strict framework seeking to prevent document production requests from derailing the arbitration process – which is a growing problem, ref. e.g. the conversation between Ola Nisja and Stephan L. Jervell on this in Woldgiftspodden episode 2. To get off at the right foot, the HI-PO1 (45) sets out:

«To ensure a front-loaded process, the Parties shall to the extent possible include document requests (if any) in their two first submissions, preferably in their first submission (C-1/R-1).»

This is followed up with firm deadlines in the procedural timetable, see Annex 1 to the HI-PO1:

One month after the Statement of Defence: The parties shall submit requests for production of documents (if any)

One week thereafter: The parties shall respond to each other’s requests for production of documents (if any)

Ten days thereafter: Mutual deadline to comment on each other’s positions regarding requests for production of documents and to exchange documentary evidence agreed to be disclosed

Eleven days thereafter: Tribunal to decide on disputed requests for production of documents (if any)

Fourteen days thereafter: Exchange of documentary evidence ordered by the Tribunal to be disclosed (if any)

Of course, it may prove difficult to follow such «tight» deadlines as the case unfolds. However, having a strict framework in place provides the best possible basis for a front-loaded arbitration process.

The third strength of the HI-PO1 is, in our view, the framework regarding potential witnesses, including expert witnesses. At the outset, it was agreed in the Heroic Idun case that written witness statements should also be filed for invoked witnesses of fact, see HI-PO1 (55). Moreover, the following framework and deadlines applied to all witnesses, see HI-PO1 (53), (54) and Annex 1:

In their Statement of Claim and Defence: The parties shall strive to invoke all witnesses they deem necessary to prove their case

35 days after the Statement of Defence: The parties shall submit a list of witnesses, including expert witnesses

Seven days thereafter: The parties shall submit a final list of witnesses, including expert witnesses

In C-2 and R-2 (second round of submissions): Written witness statements and expert reports shall be submitted

In C-3 and R-3 (third round of submissions): Rebuttals regarding witness statements and expert reports shall be limited to issues raised in the second round of submissions that were not already sufficiently addressed

Based on this framework, the parties are forced to clarify at an early stage whom they will call as both witnesses of fact and expert witnesses. Moreover, the parties are given the opportunity to match potential expert evidence within 7 days. It could be argued that the written witness statements and expert reports should ideally have been presented even earlier to facilitate settlement discussions. Again, however, there may have been perfectly good reasons for this «set-up» in the specific case.

Limitation of liability

The Heroic Idun case was subject to NOMA Rules (2021), which set out the following in Article 14 regarding exclusion of liability:

«Save for intentional wrongdoing, the parties waive, to the fullest extent permitted under the applicable law, any claim against the arbitrators, NOMA and any person appointed by the arbitral tribunal based on any act or omission in connection with the arbitration.»

Similar limitations of liability provisions are found in other institutional arbitration rules: OCC Rules (2017) Article 37, SCC Rules (2023) Article 52, DIA Rules (2021) Article 51, FAI Rules (2024) Article 53 and ICC Rules (2026) Article 45.

Arbitrators appointed in arbitrations subject to institutional rules with limitation of liability provisions can rely on these provisions from the outset if one of the parties later seeks compensation for alleged wrongdoing. Even so, the HI-PO1 paragraph (99) states:

«The Parties accept and shall confirm in writing to the Tribunal that the limitation of liability set out in the NOMA Rules Art 14 applies to the present arbitration.»

By this, the tribunal in the Heroic Idun case secured an explicit and direct limitation of liability between the parties and the arbitrators. With the increasing trend of actions against arbitration awards from the losing party, we consider this to be good practice. This is especially important in Norwegian ad hoc arbitrations, as no express limitation of liability provision exists via the parties’ arbitration agreement. This is not to say that limitations will not apply for arbitrators in ad hoc arbitrations, but the Norwegian Arbitration Act does not contain any limitation of liability provisions.

Creating an «opening» to appoint an administrative (tribunal) secretary

In the Heroic Idun case, the arbitral tribunal was given the power to appoint an administrative secretary, subject to the parties’ approval of the candidate, ref. HI-PO1 section 9, where paragraph (91) reads:

«To save costs and make the arbitration proceedings more efficient the Tribunal may, subject to the Parties’ approval of the candidate and the terms, appoint an administrative secretary to carry out the following tasks according to paragraph 224 of the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration (1 January 2021) […]»

In Norwegian arbitrations, the use of administrative secretaries has been almost non-existent, even if this has been used in international arbitration for a long time. Moreover, the arbitration rules of DIA, FAI and ICC give the tribunal explicit powers to appoint an administrative secretary after consulting the parties. The same goes for the SCC arbitration rules, but there the appointment is subject to the approval of the parties.

The potential pros and cons regarding the use of administrative secretaries, the scope and limits of the role, and how the secretary shall be remunerated are topics that fall outside the scope of this newsletter. However, for larger Norwegian arbitrations, we support the inclusion of a mandate similar to HI-PO1 for the following main reasons:

First, we believe that an administrative secretary, used correctly, can be beneficial for the efficiency of the process and thus save time and costs. This is especially the case in arbitrations where the factual side of the dispute is extensive, e.g. in construction cases. The administrative secretary can, in such cases, play a key role in administering all the facts (and claims) and assist the chairperson/tribunal in the document production request phase that usually follows in such cases.

Second, setting the scope of the administrative secretary’s role, and avoiding the fear of decision-making powers being delegated, can «easily» be done by referring to internationally recognised standards. In HI-PO1, this was elegantly done by including paragraph 224 of the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration (1 January 2021). This ICC Note has recently been revised (June 2026), and the correct reference is now paragraph 211.

Third, the use of administrative secretaries can be a very good way for aspiring arbitrators to learn from more experienced arbitrators. Such use will thus also, over time, widen the pool of qualified and diversified arbitrators, both in terms of gender and age. As such positions will be popular for gaining invaluable experience, the remuneration level should reflect this, thereby also helping to keep the cost of the arbitration down.

What do we want to see more of in future PO1s?

As stated above, a PO1 should always be tailormade to the dispute at hand to serve its purpose. However, without any criticism to the PO1 in the Heroic Idun case, we would also have liked to see the following:

A mediation/settlement window in the procedural timetable. According to section 1.6 of the NOMA CMC-matrix (2025), this is one of the discussion topics for the first case management meeting in NOMA arbitrations. Including a mediation/settlement window in the timetable to encourage settlement of the dispute is also part of the recommendation in the recently updated ICC Guidance Note (June 2026) Part III, section I., 1.o.(ii): «discussing mediation windows at the initial or further CMCs, and including them in the procedural timetable, where agreed by the parties;»

Inclusion of sealed offer mechanisms, which is also recommended in the ICC Guidance Note (June 2026) Part I, Part III, section I., 1.n.: «Use sealed offers». See more on sealed offers in our Q1 2026 Newsletter (under the heading «Proposal no. 4: Strict(er) rules on cost and sealed offer mechanisms»).

Inclusion of the power for the arbitral tribunal to provide preliminary views. Again, this is recommended in the ICC Guidance Note (June 2026), Part III, Section I., 1.o. (iii): «…adopting further steps to facilitate settlement of the dispute, for example through providing preliminary views…». See more on the potential use of preliminary views in our Q1 2026 Newsletter (under the heading «Proposal no. 6: Preliminary (non-binding) views (the «German approach»)«).

Nordics United – «stronger together» during IBA

Under this heading, the Nordic arbitration institutes (OCC, NOMA, SCC, DIA and FAI) are jointly inviting international arbitration practitioners to an event during IBA in Copenhagen on 7 October 2026 (see the full invitation here). This may seem like a small thing in the international arbitration event calendar, but we think this is an important step for «Nordic arbitration».

In March last year, the inaugural Nordic Commercial Arbitration Forum was held in Stockholm. The forum is a joint venture between the Stockholm Centre for Commercial Law (SCCL) and the Oslo Centre for Commercial Law (OCCL) – with the backing of all the Nordic arbitration institutions. In our report from this event (see our Q1 2025 Newsletter), we advocated that the Nordic arbitration institutions should first get together to discuss concrete alignment of their rules and best practice documents under a joint “storyline”, second, that it should be explored whether there is room for a consolidation, and third, that there should be an initiative directed at the Nordic governments regarding a joint update of the four local arbitration acts.

In light of the above, we celebrate that co-operation among the Nordic arbitration institutes has resulted in a joint event during the IBA using the storyline «experience the power of the Nordics united». This storyline is supported by the title of the keynote from Rane Willerslev: «From Viking Norms to Modern Arbitration: A Nordic Legal Tradition in Practice«. Collectively, this signals to the world the Nordics share a common legal culture and values, which is also supported by the results from the Rule of Law Index from 2025 where Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden rank at the top (in that order).

We look forward to this «Nordics United» event and will revert with a report in due course.

NAA News

The Norwegian Arbitration Association (NAA) has taken over responsibility for the arbitration education programme launched in 2025. The second round will start at the beginning of September 2026, see here (with full programme). According to information from the NAA, the course is fully booked.

On 1 June 2026, the NAA held its first annual meeting. Besides the «usual topics», the following can be noted:

First, the NAA has taken over responsibility for the Norwegian Arbitration Day (to be held on 11 February 2027), and the programme committee was «in process».

Second, the NAA is also assisting the Oslo Center for Commercial Law with its responsibility to organise the second Nordic Commercial Arbitration Forum, to be held on 1 April 2027.

Third, the NAA announced the establishment of NOWA – a network dedicated to promoting Norwegian women in arbitration. This is, in our view, an important initiative for the arbitration community. At the same time, as Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss noted during the annual meeting, the broader ambition should also be to lift young talent more generally: a strong arbitration community depends on creating opportunities, mentorship and visibility for the next generation as a whole.

NOMA News

We have above commented on NOMA’s recent publication of PO1 from the Heroic Idun-case (in addition to the award previously being published, see here).

The same goes for NOMA’s participation in the Nordics United event during IBA in Copenhagen in September 2026, see above.

NOMA has recently published the invitation for the NOMA-DAY in Bergen on 29 October 2026, see here. The topic for the fourth NOMA-DAY is «Settlements in Nordic Arbitration». We think this is a good choice of topic – and we hope that some of the elements in our proposal for «Arbitration 3.0» are debated (see further on our suggested elements in our Q1 2026 Newsletter).

What’s On the Agenda

New ICC Arbitration Rules and Guidance Note launched

The ICC’s revised Arbitration Rules entered into force on 1 June 2026. The new rules preserve the core ICC framework but introduce targeted amendments aimed at efficiency, usability and alignment with current arbitral practice. Several amendments codify practices already reflected in ICC practice and guidance, while others introduce genuinely new tools.

Key changes

Terms of Reference: Mandatory Terms of Reference in standard cases have been removed. This is one of the most significant procedural changes in the 2026 revision and reflects a move away from a formal step that has gradually become less central in practice.

Case management conference: The initial case management conference must now be held within 30 days of the tribunal receiving the file, and the cut-off for new claims is linked to that conference. This makes early procedural organisation the new anchor point of the case.

Early determination: The 2026 Rules expressly allow early determination of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside jurisdiction. This gives formal rule-based footing to a tool that had already existed in ICC practice.

Emergency arbitration: The emergency arbitrator regime now extends to certain parties that may be bound by the arbitration agreement, not only signatories and successors. The 2026 Rules also add preliminary orders, including potentially without notice, subject to later procedural safeguards.

Expedited procedure: The automatic threshold for expedited procedure increases to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. This increases the number of disputes potentially falling within the expedited regime.

Highly Expedited Arbitration: The 2026 Rules introduce a new opt-in highly expedited track with front-loaded pleadings and a final award within three months of the initial case management conference. This is a notable addition for parties seeking a very fast process in suitable cases.

Appendix IV of the 2021 Rules regarding «Case Management Techniques» has been deleted in the 2026 Rules and replaced with a reference to «…the guidance notes issued by the Secretariat, taking into account the work of the Commission on Arbitration and ADR.» – see Article 23 (2).

Our observations

The 2026 Rules do not alter the fundamentals of ICC arbitration. Their practical significance lies in a smaller number of changes that are likely to matter in how cases are organised and progressed.

The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference is likely to be the most consequential shift in practice. It eliminates a distinctive procedural step and places greater emphasis on the initial case management conference as the main organising moment in the arbitration.

The express introduction of early determination, the broader emergency arbitrator regime and the expansion of expedited options also point in the same direction. Taken together, these changes suggest a more flexible and efficiency-driven framework, with greater emphasis on front-loaded procedure and faster resolution where appropriate.

When zooming in on the details, the following is also noteworthy in our view: The replacement of Appendix IV (Case Management Techniques) in the 2021 Rules with the following reference in Article 23 (2):

«To manage the case effectively, after consulting the parties, the arbitral tribunal shall adopt such procedural measures as it considers appropriate, provided that they are not contrary to any agreement of the parties. Such measures may include one or more of the case management techniques described in the guidance notes issued by the Secretariat, taking into account the work of the Commission on Arbitration and ADR.»

By this, the ICC lifts the guidance note of 1 June 2026 (Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of ICC Arbitration) and the work of the Commission on Arbitration and ADR «into the rules» (as guidance). As the guidance note refers to, e.g., the ICC reports on «Facilitating Settlement in International Arbitration» (2023) and the ICC Guide on «Effective Conflict Management» (2023), there is hope that international commercial arbitration will become more solution-oriented through the use of mediation windows, sealed offers, decision trees and preliminary views in international arbitration. For our further views on solution-oriented arbitration, with several references to the above-mentioned reports, see our Q1 2026 Newsletter under the heading «Arbitration 3.0» – focused on solution & powered by science.

Episode 4 of Woldgiftspodden is out – Joint appointment: a pan-Nordic recipe for success?

In episode 4 of Woldgiftspodden, we take a deep dive into the Norwegian rule regarding joint appointment of the arbitral tribunal together with Marie Nesvik, partner in Wikborg Rein, and Amund Bjøranger Tørum, partner in BAHR. We discuss the background to the rule, whether it works in practice and whether the other Nordic countries should consider the same model.

The backdrop of the conversation was:

Marie (together with Anne Karin Nesdam) has recently written an article on the topic «Unilateral Part-Appointment and Affiliation Bias: Is Joint Appointment the Solution?» in the Stockholm Arbitration Review

Amund has recently been in Finland in connection with the ongoing process to update Finland’s arbitration act, and gave a talk during the FAA’s Annual meeting in Helsinki on «Joint appointment of arbitrators vs. party appointments – do the pros outweigh the cons?» (link to his slides here)