I want to first address the question of whether resolutions would be binding. My view on this is fairly simple: we should avoid too much being made mandatory, or else we'll see this project falling apart incredibly quickly. If anything, I feel that the General Assembly saying a resolution is binding should be sufficient for that purpose, perhaps requiring some greater percentage than merely the usual 50%+1 to make it so. The veto debate, and by extension the Security Council debate, will, of course, affect the ultimate answer to this question, but I think that may be a good starting point.
As much as I personally oppose having a Security Council this question is actually one where having such a council would be useful because (ironically) the second grouping of the SC would create a distinct separation of remit because we could then legitimately say that everything in the SC is binding (because it potentially mandates military action, embargo's, sanctions, air strikes etc) while everything in the Assembly could be non-binding and therefore be a recommendation not an obligation. Incidentally on the veto point this potentially would mean that veto's (if decided upon) wouldn't be as far as I can see needed in the Assembly if we had an agreed OOC guideline about what the difference between a GA matter and what would be an SC matter is.
Now as per the framework:
Article 5 clarification - "The League shall have no authority over the internal affairs of its Members beyond what is (a) explicitly granted under the terms of this Charter or (b) surrendered voluntarily by any individual Member."
I think Rob made the point on Discord that the League shouldn't be able to force Nya Aland to change its laws on religious symbols but the League should be able to have the wider debate on religious freedom. Part of me (and I'm a little bit in legal overdrive on about 3 other RP issues so I'm possibly overthinking it) isn't quite 100% that that's what that means, can we just be clear on whether that article prevents the wider debate scenario from taking place.
Organs:
Ok what I would say here is that bringing the subsidiaries over from both makes sense I would actually overhaul the MCA because it needs to be reworked into something far simpler than it is.
General Assembly:
I don't think we need a symbolic Sec-Gen within the organisation as such, I think we can safely operate the Assembly with civil service taking the lead in terms of admin if we need to RP a chair for any purpose. I would also say that in pretty much nearly every CTO debate that I can't remember the chair (whether Sec-Gen or civil service) doing that much, I think the only exceptions to that I can think of are a couple of Tim Carpenter's later debates and the Andean Genocide debates where I (as much as I tried not to) had Serenity doing an awful lot.
That said if we're going to have some sort of figurehead so the symbolic sec-gen I would suggest it be on a rotating basis not an elected basis which I believe is the model the CMA uses.
Security Council: See my point at the top of this post - I suspect how this works or if it exists will be tied into whether we end up with veto's or not. I would suggest if it does exist that we say that everyone is in both and the only reason I can see for the SC existing in this would be to enable us to differentiate between when a resolution is binding and when it isn't.
Peacekeeping: I agree roll it into the SC if we have one or the GA if we don't.
Arbitration:
I suspect having an ICJ would require some defining in terms of its jurisdiction, I would also add that this section would possibly have something regarding the internal policing of the organisation but I'm not entirely sure.
Misc: re HQ definitely agreed on a new HQ I would recommend how the CIS chose its HQ be adapted for this purpose. I'll explain more on this in a separate post.
Amendments: I think this needs to be a super majority and I would actually combine a 2/3 or 3/4 majority with Rob's suggested qualified majority for this specific process because that would ensure it's possible without making it impossible.
Ratification:
It's a technical point but it's all in the timing. Looking at this legally if this treaty achieves a merger of the CTO and the CMA then we've got to dissolve both the CTO and the CMA and transfer their powers to the League which means both CTO and CMA must pass dissolution resolutions. So what I would say here is in regards to the in force date of the League's charter, if we get as far as signing it then we should be saying that two weeks from the day we have the first signature on it is when the treaty comes into force. This allows time for both the CTO and CMA to sort themselves out.