这是一个比较扎实的办法，其目的在于：a) 兼顾第 2 章和第 3 章中分别提出的港到港办法和门到门办法，在统一货物运输国际法律方面迈出重大的一步。实际上这是在单一项文书中包括两项单独的公约，同时分别载列这两章共有的条文。按此办法，哪些缔约国加入第 2 章规定的海事制度，哪些国家加入第 3 章规定的多式联运制度，一目了然。b) 从长远来看有增进统一性的可能，因为只加入第 2 章的国家只要撤消其对第章的保留意见即可加入第 3 章。这或许是办法 3 与办法 1 之间的一个关键差别，在办法 1 中，撤消这种保留意见可能因不同的政策考虑而变得复杂，可能需要就是否为配合第 4.2.1 条而通过一项内陆运输国际公约而作出决定。此外，虽然这些公约往往是区域性的，且数目有限，但无法预测今后是否会通过其他区域性公约。这些公约不太可能是统一的，因此，因第 4.2.1 条而将其纳入本文书，可能无助于推进货物运输国际统一性的事业。
This is a more robust option designed to: a) make a major step in harmonization of international law for carriage of goods by accommodating both the port-to-port and door-to-door approaches in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, respectively. Effectively, there would be two separate conventions in a single instrument, sharing those provisions that would be common to both Chapters. Under this option, it would be abundantly clear which contracting States adhere to the marine regime in Chapter 2 and which adhere to the multimodal regime in Chapter 3. b) improve the prospects of long-term uniformity since States adhering only to Chapter 2 could join Chapter 3 by simply revoking their reservation on the latter. This may be a key difference between Option 3 and Option 1 where revoking that reservation may be complicated by different policy considerations, possibly requiring a decision whether or not to adopt an international convention for inland carriage to support Article 4.2.1. Moreover, although these conventions are rather regional in nature, and limited in number, there is no way of predicting if other regional conventions will be adopted in the future. They are not likely to be uniform and thus importing them into this instrument by virtue of Article 4.2.1 may not advance the cause of international uniformity for carriage of goods.