Micellar electrokinetic chromatography (MEKC) was investigated for the enantiomeric separations of three binaphthyl derivatives ((+/-)-1,1'-bi-(2-naphthol) (BOH), (+/-)-1,1'-binaphthyl-2,2'-diyl hydrogenphosphate (BNP), and (+/-)-1,1'-binaphthyl-2,2'-diamine (BNA)) using two recently synthesized chiral polymeric surfactants; (polysodium N-undecenoxy carbonyl-L-leucinate (poly-L-SUCL) and polysodium N-undecenoxy carbonyl-L-isoleucinate (poly-L-SUCIL)) in our laboratory [33]. Enantiomeric separation (resolution and selectivity) of the binaphthyl derivatives was influenced by polymerization concentration of the monomeric surfactant, pH, type and concentration of the background electrolyte (BGE) as well as concentration of the polymeric surfactant. Two BGEs (dibasic phosphate and Tris-borate) were compared for this study. The use of dibasic phosphate as BGE in poly-L-SUCL provides baseline resolution of BOH and (+/-) BNP, however, no resolution and selectivity at all was observed for BNA. A similar approach was adopted with Tris-borate-poly-L-SUCL system at fixed pH 10.1, which resulted in baseline resolution of all three binaphthyl derivatives. Although R, of binaphthyl derivatives was always higher and electroosmotic flow (EOF) was always lower using Tris-borate than with dibasic phosphate, the selectivity values for the two buffer systems did not differ significantly. In addition, it was found that poly-L-SUCL provided better enantiomeric resolution and selectivity for BOH and (+/-) BNA, while poly-L-SUCIL provided enhanced enantiomeric resolution but similar enantioselectivity for (+/-) BNP. This indicates that the depth of analyte penetration into the palisade layer and the micellar core are responsible for chiral recognition of hydrophobic analyte (e.g., (+/-) BOH, and (+/-) BNA) whereas for moderately hydrophobic analyte (e.g., (+/-) BNP) interaction with the polar head group seems to dictate chiral recognition. Simultaneous enantioresolution of all three binaphthyl derivatives was possible in a single electrophoretic run using either poly-L-SUCL or poly-L-SUCIL. Further comparison of the two polymeric surfactants; showed that poly-L-SUCL provided slightly longer analysis time than poly-L-SUCIL but the use of the former polymeric surfactant should be preferred due to its ability to provide complete baseline resolution and higher selectivity of all the three atropisomers with a wider chiral window.