This article theoretically and empirically analyzes the role of the leadership institution in ensuring the stability of regional integration processes under conditions of global transformations. Within the framework of the study, the optimistic views of functionalist and neofunctionalist theories are critically reviewed, and the necessity of a political agency and a consensus-based tandem model for the crisis-resilience of integration is substantiated. The article systemizes the mechanisms of the Franco-German bilateral tandem model within the European Union and introduces the possibilities of adapting this experience to the post-Soviet Central Asian geopolitical environment based on Amitav Acharya's "norm localization" methodology. The analysis shows that regional leadership ensures integration stability through three main mechanisms-material provision (paymaster function), mediation in interstate negotiations, and the definition of normative foundations, reaching its highest significance during periods of systemic crises. The stability of integration processes depends not on unipolar hegemony, but on a bilateral partnership tandem relying on legitimate institutional cooperation, which, in the Central Asian region, requires the institutionalization of cooperation between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

regional integration, regional leadership, bilateral tandem, functionalism, norm localization, crisis stabilizer, Central Asia.

Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239–275.

Destradi, S. (2010). Regional powers and their strategies: Empire, hegemony, and leadership. Review of International Studies, 36(4), 903–930.

Haas, E. B. (1958). The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces, 1950–1957. Stanford University Press.

Haas, E. B. (1975). The obsolescence of regional integration theory. Institute of International Studies, University of California.

Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.

Kindleberger, C. P. (1973). The world in depression, 1929–1939. University of California Press.

Krapohl, S., Meissner, K. L., & Muntschick, J. (2014). Regional powers as leaders or rambos? The ambivalent behaviour of Brazil and South Africa in regional economic integration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(4), 879–895.

Krotz, U., & Schild, J. (2013). Shaping Europe: France, Germany, and embedded bilateralism from the Elysée Treaty to twenty-first century politics. Oxford University Press.

Mitrany, D. (1943). A working peace system. Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Cornell University Press.

Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.

Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford University Press.

Tallberg, J. (2006). Leadership and negotiation in the European Union. Cambridge University Press.

Webber, D. (2019). European disintegration? The politics of crisis in the European Union. Red Globe Press.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.

Young, O. R. (1991). Political leadership in regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society. International Organization, 45(3), 281–308.