While the United States (US) have acted as a hegemon in promoting international institutions that underpin the Liberal International Order (LIO), they also have regularly withdrawn their support from them. As embodiment of the principle of multilateralism and liberal values as well as due to its economic power, the EU as well as its member states are usually expected to step in after the hegemon abandoned its leadership. While the EU successfully provided leadership after the hegemon abandoned some institutions, it failed to do so in others. Why? To answer this question, the paper theoretically develops and empirically tests a theory of leadership transition after hegemonic withdrawal. I claim that successful leadership by the EU and its member states depends on three conditions: (1) the joint willingness to take the lead; (2) the availability of issue-specific resources to sustain an institution’s purpose; and (3) its recognition by other member states of an institution. I probe the plausibility of my theoretical argument by comparing three case-pairs of hegemonic withdrawal in the issue areas of global health governance, global climate change governance, and international security. The paper yields important implications for the future of the LIO in times of global power shifts. To sustain the institutional pillars of the LIO, EU member states should facilitate joint EU action when it comes to the preservation of existing multilateral institutions and burden sharing after hegemonic withdrawal.
