The interpretation of the UN Genocide Convention, specifically regarding the phrase "(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group," involves both the literal text and the intent behind it. Here's how this could be analyzed:

Literal Interpretation:

Direct Intent: The phrase "imposing measures intended to prevent births" typically suggests direct actions aimed at preventing conception or childbirth, like forced sterilization or contraception. Starvation leading to lactation failure does not directly target the act of giving birth. Thus, in a strictly literal interpretation, it might not be seen as fitting under this clause.

Intent-Based Interpretation:

Broader Intent: However, the broader intent of genocide includes actions that could lead to the destruction of a group "in whole or in part." If starvation is used with the intent to destroy a group or significantly diminish its population, including by affecting child survival rates through preventing breastfeeding, this could be argued to align with the spirit of the convention.

Impact on Group Survival: If the starvation of mothers leads to the death or severe health deterioration of infants due to lack of breastfeeding, this could be interpreted as part of broader genocidal practices aimed at the group's destruction, even if not directly preventing the act of birth.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) Interpretation:

Historical Precedents: The ICJ and other international tribunals have occasionally looked at the broader effects and intentions behind actions rather than just their literal execution. For instance, in cases like the Bosnian Genocide Case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), the ICJ considered a wide range of acts when determining genocide, not just those explicitly listed in the Convention.

Mens Rea and Actus Reus: The court would examine both the mens rea (intent) and actus reus (the act itself). If the intent to destroy a group, in part or whole, through starvation can be established, and this starvation directly results in the inability to sustain group members (like through breastfeeding), the ICJ might interpret this within the genocide framework.

Modern Interpretations: International law evolves, and interpretations of treaties like the Genocide Convention can expand to include acts that, while not explicitly mentioned, serve the same purpose of group destruction as those listed. The ICJ could consider modern understandings of human rights and humanitarian law in its interpretations.

Conclusion: While starvation leading to lactation issues might not directly fit under the exact wording of the Convention, the ICJ could potentially interpret such actions as genocidal if there's clear intent to destroy the group through these means. This would depend on the evidence presented, the context, and the court's willingness to look beyond the literal text to the overarching purpose of preventing genocide. However, this would be a nuanced legal argument where the specifics of the case, including the direct link between the starvation policy and the intent to destroy the group, would be critical.