Recent calls to study international practices stand out for their attempts to bridge the material ideational divide, viewing international relations as a realm of competent acts engendering the international system. Foreign policy, as a bureaucratic enterprise of protocol and institutional practices, is the ideal ground to assess the value of practice in International Relations. But as our case study of sanctions relief in Sudan shows, crossing the levels of analysis is hardly a smooth process as clashes emerge and challenge the status quo requiring departures from existing norms. When descending the levels of analysis into the very weeds of actual diplomatic issues, one finds a range of practices that challenge a singular view of international practices. Success or failure of policy, its direction, and evolution must address the harmony or clash of practices across these levels. This paper assesses the value of practice by studying a case with a clear evolution in practices in the development of sanctions relief in Sudan.