Academic discourse power is a kind of soft power, which mainly refers to the influence, judgment, guidance and application of academic discourse. The improvement of the discourse power of contemporary philosophy and social sciences has become a major issue in China. As an important part of philosophy and social sciences, Chinese law once had a glorious era of Chinese legal system. But with the decline of the Qing government, the globalization movement of western legal discourse, the "western law moving eastward" and other reasons of China’s late Qing Dynasty, the discourse system of Chinese legal system has disintegrated. Since then, even though Chinese legal discourse has not totally disappeared in the world, it has become a negative teaching material of legal modernization. Although the contemporary Chinese legal academic research has shown a fruitful and prosperous landscape, and the research on extraterritorial law has become a hot trend, it is still in the situation of speechlessness in the world. The reasons for the lack of discourse power of Chinese law in the world include: the lack of subject consciousness of Chinese legal discourse leads to the lack of self-confidence of Chinese legal academic research subjects and the almost total negation of Chinese ancient and modern laws; the repetitive production and lack of innovation of Chinese academic research lead to the low academic quality of Chinese legal discourse; the exchange and dialogue with foreign laws become one-way apprenticeship learning; the movement of globalization of western legal discourse is still going on, and its discourse power in the world is still dominant. However, significant progress has been made in the construction of Chinese law and the rule of law. It is necessary for Chinese academic discourse to reflect these progress and achievements and spread its voice internationally. The existence of the international discourse power of legal academic discourse is not directly related to the number and continuous repetitive production of legal research results, nor can it be obtained through the "string puppet" research of extra-territorial law. In order to suit the remedy to the case, the promotion of legal discourse power should find countermeasures according to the above reasons. Therefore, Chinese legal academic research must first reshape the subjectivity consciousness of Chinese legal discourse, so as to eliminate the discourse tendency of "other alienation" and "self alienation". Secondly, when communicating with foreign laws, we should have confidence in the academic research of Chinese law in order to change the appearance of apprenticeship communication. Thirdly, innovative academic production should be carried out with an independent research attitude to solve the quality problem of academic discourse, so as to make China a producer rather than a consumer of legal academic discourse. Fourthly, Chinese academic research should attach great importance and pay close attention to the legal issues of the international community, break through the hegemonic barriers of extraterritorial legal discourse with high quality of China’s proposition, and promote the development of international legal cause. While the extraterritorial legal discourse is still dominant, China should take measures to actively promote its academic research to the world.